The real problem is curriculum and how it is used.  Regardless of whether we return children to the classroom or teach online until it is safe for students to return, curriculum will determine each student's success or failure.  
 
Yes, the battle continues as the start date for school draws near.  Is it physically sitting in a classroom, or, instead, curriculum and how curriculum is used that determines instructional effectiveness?
 
Education is failing across the nation.  The spring attempt at online classes was, for the most part, a failure, but will simply putting children back in the classroom solve the problem?  No, because just having students physically sitting in a classroom is not the answer.  Schools are arguing, as usual, over what should be taught, but this year they are also arguing over where students should be taught.
 
Some schools are going with totally online classes until it is safe to send children back to school.  Other schools are using an alternate day plan—some students will go one day; others will go the next day.  While still other schools are offering parents choices.  Parents may choose in-class instruction by sending their children to school or parents may choose online instruction and assist with class assignments from home until they feel it is safe for children to return to school. 
 
President Trump demands that students return to school.  Department of Education, Secretary DeVos, says that it’s safe, but is it? 
 
Can anyone truly promise that it is safe to send children back to school?
 
Dr. Fauci, Director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases for over 35 years and identified as one of the world’s leading authorities on infectious diseases, spoke recently with Dr. John Whyte, the chief medical officer at WebMD on the program entitled Coronavirus in Context.  This was an excellent interview, and I encourage you to read it in its entirety.  

As Dr. Fauci warned,
 
“…people’s opinions are a fact of life.  What gets, um, I think troublesome, is when people develop their own set of facts.  Facts don’t change.  So you have a different opinion, but facts are consistent.  That’s the problem.”
 
When Dr. Fauci was asked if he thought it was safe for schools to reopen, he said,
 
“… It really is going to depend on what the viral activity is in the place …. There are some counties, … We have 3,007 counties in the United States.… some counties where there’s so little viral activity, you could just say, don’t worry about it. Go back to school. But there are others, … where there’s enough activity where you’ve got to make a choice.  And the choice can either be, don’t bring the kids back or, preferably, bring them back in a way that is very, very geared towards guaranteeing their safety, and their welfare, and the safety and the welfare of the teachers…. To say, we are going to open up schools in the United States or not. That doesn’t make any sense, because we’re such a big, big country, that things are going to be different in one region versus the other.”
 
The school reopening question has been taken over by politics.  Safety is being ignored.  Science is being ignored.  As coronavirus numbers soar, politics reigns, but there is also another problem overshadowing the reopening of schools this fall.  A problem that cannot and will not be solved by simply sending children and teachers back into the classroom.  We have a curriculum problem.  Reading scores were lower in fourth and eighth grade in 2019.  
 
Absolutely no one can guarantee that simply returning children to the classroom will enabled them to learn.  I am writing a series on 20 Reasons Why Reading Scores Were Lower in 2019 than 2017.  That means, we are looking at 20 reasons why more children could not read at grade level in 2019 than could read at grade level in 2017. 
 
Something went wrong in the classroom.  Scores should have been better in 2019, not worse. These test scores were before the coronavirus pandemic. Therefore, these test scores come from children who were sitting in school classrooms.
 
Why were reading scores worse in 2019? One major reason is curriculum

Regardless of whether we teach in class or online, one of the main determinants for how much children and teens learn in school is curriculum and how it is used.

Read more: Reason #7 That Reading Scores Were Lower in 2019: The Three Cueing System

First, let’s define what we mean by curriculum:
 
“Curriculum … encompasses the program of instruction ... and related resources (like lessons, activities, units, and textbooks) – that school districts use to ensure students master the academic standards each year in their coursework.  While the standards lay out what students are expected to know in a given subject, curriculum provides an instructional guide for teachers so that their students meet those expectations. Curriculum includes teaching materials such as those that can be found in commercial textbooks and software applications; it also includes the pedagogy for delivering those materials when educators receive guidance on how to teach the curriculum, or when software manages the pacing, prompts, and feedback that students receive as they engage with the materials. Unlike the reading/language arts, mathematics, and science standards, which are created by states, curriculum choices are made at the local level, with varying degrees of state involvement or oversight. For example, some states create lists of approved textbooks that districts must choose from. Moreover, instructional decisions about what to do with that curriculum are made every day by classroom teachers.”  (p. 4)  
 
To clarify, state standards are the expectations of what students should know by the end of the school year.  Curriculum is the means by which children learn or accomplish those standards.  From this definition, we can immediately see several problems that could arise.
 
Why is curriculum a problem?
 
First, research shows that many adopted school textbooks and other curriculum material do not meet state standards. Publishers often advertise that they meet the standards, but when analyzed, the curriculum does not fulfill student needs.  
 
Let’s look at an example in reading.  In one review by Education Reports, only three out of five curriculum choices for foundation early reading and writing were found to be even partially in keeping with the standards.  Yet, these are programs being used by schools. 
 
Research shows that it does not cost schools more to provide high quality curriculum rather than poor quality instructional materials and using higher quality teaching materials can definitely improve learning.  As two different research studies stated:

“Textbooks are relatively inexpensive and tend to be similarly priced…. The marginal cost of choosing a more effective textbook over a less effective alternative is essentially zero.” 
 
“…switching to a high-quality curriculum may be a more cost-effective way to raise student achievement than several other school-level interventions.” 

If selecting more effective curriculum doesn’t cost more money and better-quality curriculum can produce higher student achievement, why are schools still selecting poor quality curriculum?
 
Curriculum selection is as politicized as the question on whether schools should reopen for in class instruction this fall.  No one is measuring accuracy, quality, or effectiveness.  It’s all about politics and money.
 
“…politics often dominate the discussion over the adoption of textbooks and other instructional material, and issues such as the teaching of evolution are often center stage. There is also a clear gap between the reality of which curricula are effective or aligned to state standards and the curricula that publishers advertise as such….  When hard evidence on curriculum quality is available, it should supersede the often vague impressions of stakeholder groups that frequently dominate the process.” 
 
Several years ago, I served on a curriculum selection committee.  I was in a university community and there were several of us from the University.  The only guidelines we were given for the textbook selection were to “look at these books and see which ones you like.”  Unfortunately, this is how many textbooks are selected. 
 
How can schools tell the difference between high-quality curriculum and low-quality or inaccurate curriculum material?
 
Independent testing is needed.  Most curriculum textbooks and/or teaching materials are never tested to make sure that they are effective; instead, schools just take the publishers word for it.  We need to test what makes one curriculum more effective than another.  We need longitudinal effectiveness studies covering 4 years of student progress or more.  We also need to know the effective of curriculum in different school settings.  Actual research comparing textbooks and other curriculum is very rare.  When we consider that the curriculum chosen by schools or states can determine the success or failure of students in the classroom, this is a major problem in our educational system today.
 
When schools select a textbook, they also select a teaching method
 
In reading, the battle over teaching method has often been referred to as the “Reading Wars.”  At present, the most common teaching methods being used in public school classrooms are whole language, phonics, and blended literacy. 
 
Whole language is a teaching method that emphasizes recognizing whole words, includes cueing, memorizing sight words, and guessing.  This method was proven to totally not work in 2015 through neuroimaging research by Yuliya Yoncheva’s research team as reported in the Brain and Language journal.  Yet, whole language and cueing are still being taught in classrooms today and on the Internet.  When schools buy textbooks that teach the whole language approach, they are buying and teaching a teaching method that has been proven ineffective.  This creates reading failure.
 
Phonics is a method of teaching reading that groups letter sounds together and teaches rules that predict when these sounds will appear in a word.  Unfortunately, these predictions are only accurate about half of the time.  This leads to major problems with students who struggle in reading.  I have several blogs citing research on why phonics fails, but probably the best summation on phonics comes from Dr. Sally Shaywitz. 
 
“Children do not learn to read by memorizing a word list. Most children, especially those who struggle in reading, do not learn to read by memorizing phonics rules.”   (p. 78)

More: Reason #5 for Reading Scores Being Worse in 2019: Incorrect Phonics Rules and Explanations
 
Blended literacy is nothing more than a name for whole languagee with phonics tacked on.  No, it doesn’t work either.    
 
Will sending children back into the classroom guarantee quality education or that children will learn?
 
No, just sitting in a classroom is not what enables students to learn.  Research shows that the selection of curriculum can be one of the most important ways that schools can help students learn.  
 
When schools select a failed or disproven teaching method, they are contributing to reading failure.  Reading failure leads to academic failure.  If a student cannot read, they cannot excel in social studies, in science, or even in math.  Reading is essential; therefore, schools must select curriculum that will enable teachers to teach children to read, all children.
 
Textbooks are not the only problem
 
Quality standards are needed for online curriculum materials.  Teachers change or add materials to the adopted curriculum.  The Internet is often a primary source for additional classroom curriculum material.  The quality of the material found on the Internet is not guaranteed to be good or to meet state standards.  Some online sources provide quality educational materials; unfortunately, some online sources offer poor quality materials or in some cases inaccurate curriculum material.  Some teachers develop very high quality self-developed materials, some do not.  What should schools do?
 
At present, anyone can add anything to the Internet and call it curriculum.  We need to establish scientific testing for online curriculum materials.  We need to test the effectiveness of teacher selected and teacher created resources as well as school selected curriculum.
 
Independent research needs to be conducted and posted, grouping Internet curriculum materials into effective curriculum choices and poor choices so educators selecting curriculum from the Internet can incorporate high-quality teaching materials back into the classroom.
 
Even high-quality curriculum does not always guarantee effective education
 
“Curriculum plays an important role in how students are taught, and there is a strong body of evidence that shows that putting a high-quality curriculum in the hands of teachers can have significant positive impacts on student achievement.”
 
Is curriculum change enough?  First, we need high-quality curriculum.  Curriculum that has been tested and proven to be successful, but actual effectiveness is often measured by how curriculum is used.  So, we also need to train teachers to use curriculum correctly.  For even the best curriculum can be used incorrectly and thereby made to be ineffective.
 
In my reading clinic, I use vowel clustering.  I teach students to match letter sounds to the oral language system.  There are no rules to memorize, and students are never allowed to guess at a word.  Vowel clustering teaches students to break words down into individual letter sounds or clusters and then reassemble those sounds back into pronounceable words. Vowel clustering also teaches spelling, handwriting, oral reading, fluency, comprehension, and story writing.  Vowel clustering has eight years of research data showing its effectiveness.  Vowel clustering works with struggling, at risk, and failing students.  A student, who had failed for nine years using balanced literacy and phonics, learned to read in 3 ½ years using vowel clustering.  I have even had struggling students move up four grade levels in reading in one year using vowel clustering.  These were students who had failed multiple years in schools that used curriculum for whole language, balanced literacy, and phonics.  So yes, we can teach students to read, but to do so, we must change the curriculum and teaching methods that we use to teach reading.  Curriculum makes a difference in success or failure in reading.
​

My book After-School Programming and Intrinsic Motivation: Teaching at-Risk Students to Read presents the data showing how group-centered education, vowel clustering, and psychologically sound teaching methods can improve student learning. 

Yes, I know that we are still embroiled in a massive argument over whether schools should open in the fall, but at present, science is being ignored and foolish political decisions are ruling.  Therefore, I’ll set the debate aside till next week.  Yes, I’ll return to the argument, but for now, let’s look at a change that needs to be made in reading education.  This change is essential regardless whether we return to in-class instruction or online instruction.  If students are to learn to read, we must abolish the three-cueing system.  It is wrong and should never have been instituted in any school classroom.
  
What is the three-cueing system?
 
If your children are taught when they have trouble reading a word to (1) look at the picture, (2) reread the passage and see if they can figure out a word that might fit, or (3) to look at the first letter in the word and guess what the word might be, then your child has been taught the three cueing system or some derivative of that system.  Many reading programs include curriculum that specifically tries to teach students how to make better “guesses.” 
 
The idea originated from a descriptive study published by Kenneth Goodman in 1965. Notice that this was a descriptive study, not a research data-based study.  However, there isn’t scientific research to support the three-cueing system.  Yet, it continues to be taught and most likely will even be taught this fall, either in class or online. 
​

Why is the three-cueing system bad?
 
The three-cueing system is bad because guessing doesn’t work. Guessing teaches students to ignore letter sounds and concentrate on the word as a whole (more in keeping with whole language techniques).  Instead, of learning to break words down into sounds, students focus on guessing.
 
Children often come to my reading clinic completely and totally confused.  They cannot guess the correct word.  Oh yes, they guess, but 99.9% of the time they guess wrong.  That is why the first thing I teach students when they arrive at my reading clinic is:  “We never guess; we sound it out.”
 
Students should also not be taught to skip words.  In my after-school reading program, a student is never allowed to skip a word.  We say that the word is tricky; therefore, we “capture” the word and learn it.  We learn how to pronounce the word, what the word means, how to spell the word, and how to write it correctly, and we learn how to use the word in a sentence.  Then, we go back and return to our reading passage.  A student cannot comprehend a passage or story if they do not understand the meaning of the words in that passage or story.  Therefore, guessing and skipping do absolutely no good. 
 
So, how do we get rid of cueing?
 
I have no idea.  Publishers and curriculum writers make massive amounts of money by selling teaching material that focuses on cueing.  No, they don’t want to change.  Education has entered the world of politics and money; education is no longer just about learning. 
 
Prof. Kerry Hempenstall, a psychologist, from the University of Australia, explains that cueing is so popular because it allows teachers to avoid using phonics. 
 
“Perhaps the three-cueing system is ubiquitous in education training courses, and popular among teachers because it appears to reconcile the long-standing conflict between a phonics-emphasis curriculum and a literature-based curriculum [whole language approach].” 
 
Phonics enthusiasts are certainly very vocal about wanting to get rid of cueing.  Yes, they want to replace cueing with phonics.  The only problem with that is that phonics doesn’t work for every student.

Would phonics work as a replacement for cueing?

Cueing doesn’t work, but phonics doesn’t work for all students either.  Yes, we need change, but I do not see how dropping three-cueing system and adopting phonics will help.  Phonics is, at best, a mediocre teaching method that is plagued by problems.  Let’s look at some of the research.  
 
Phonics is not universally supported by scientific research
 
Even though the strongest critics of cueing suggests that phonics would be better, their claims of compatibility with the “science of reading” are not universally accepted, even by many phonics enthusiasts.

• Jeanne Sternlicht Chall (1967), an advocate for systematic phonics, visited over 300 classrooms.  While she concluded that systematic phonics was superior to “look say” whole language in 90% of the classrooms, she also clearly warned that a purely phonics approach would leave many students failing.   
• Linnea C. Ehri studied 66 phonics vs. whole language groups and again found systematic phonics to be superior to whole language but also found that systematic phonics “… did not help low achieving readers that included students with cognitive limitations.” 
• As the National Reading Panel (National Reading Panel, 2000)  clearly stated,  “…systematic phonics approaches are significantly more effective than non-phonics [whole language]…. However, phonics instruction failed to exert a significant impact on the reading performance of low-achieving readers in 2nd through 6th grades….” (p. 94).  Phonics simply does not work for many students.     
• In 2013, Tunmer and associates also stated from their research that Reading Recovery (often used to teach struggling students from the classroom) was also not effective with failing, struggling students.  As they stated, “Students with phonological difficulties did poorly [in Reading Recovery].” 
• Sebastian P. Suggate’s 2016 study compared 71 phonemic and phonics intervention groups and found that “… phonemic awareness interventions showed good maintenance of effect… phonics tended not to.”  

 
So, what are we left to conclude? 

Phonics is better than whole language, and phonics is better than cueing, but phonics is not the answer we need in the classroom. 
 
Remember, phonics was first introduced in 1690; so phonics is neither a new approach or a new teaching method.  Phonics uses a list of rules that predict when a letter of the alphabet will use a particular letter-sound.  As Sarah Forrest, reading specialist with the Easyread System, explains—such phonics rules are only successful 60% of the time. That means that, almost half of the time, phonics rules give an inaccurate prediction or the rule is simply wrong.  What are struggling and failing students supposed to do the rest of the time?
 
Read More:  When Phonics Fails
 
Forrest is not the only reading specialist pointing out problems with the phonics teaching method. Gerald Hughes, Director of the Neuro-Linguistic Learning Center and author of the book, Gifted—Not Broken:  Overcoming Dyslexia, ADD and Other Learning Challenges, states that long-standing research shows that
 
“… 20% of all children will show little or no lasting improvement in reading ability using phonics-based programs…. Using a phonics-based program on this particular group of children, is more than likely doomed to failure because it is focused on the very weaknesses of the child. Experience has repeatedly shown that when subjected to an extensive phonics-based program, many of these children will experience frustration, anger and ultimately continued failure.”    
 
So, why do the schools keep teaching phonics? 
 
 “Until recently, almost everyone thought that we store words by having some type of visual image of every word we know….  Many teaching approaches [like phonics and whole language] presume this. We assume that if students see the words enough, they will learn them. This is not true…. I believe this assumption that we store words based on visual memory is a major reason why we have widespread reading difficulties in our country…. The big discovery regarding orthographic mapping is that this oral “filing system” is the foundation of the “filing system” we use for reading words. We have no “visual dictionary” for reading that runs alongside our oral dictionary.”  (David A. Kilpatrick in Equipped for Reading Success,  pp. 27-43).
  
We must stop letting old worn-out ideas and theories stand in the way of teaching methods that improve learning in the classroom.  We need change, now.
 
Is there any hope for changing teaching methods used in the classroom?  I personally do not hold out much hope for change in the public-school educational system.  Public education is caught up in a quagmire of political haggling.
 
I’m a psychologist.  I must teach students how to read in order to help them correct the mental and psychological problems they are facing.  I can’t use a failing system.  In many instances, I am working with struggling and/or failing students.  Students come to my program because they have failed in the classroom using whole language, balanced literacy, and even phonics.  They have lost confidence; they no longer believe it’s possible for them to learn to read.  I need a teaching method that restores their self-efficacy (belief that they can learn again) by teaching them to read effectively.  I use vowel clustering.
 
Vowel clustering works with the brain and the way the brain processes phonemes or letter sounds.  Vowel clustering uses visual, auditory, and hands-on teaching techniques.  As you can see from the examples on my blog, I use art therapy to help heal the sense of failure.  
 
Vowel clustering teaches students to match vowel sounds with their corresponding letter symbols.  This emphasizes the oral letter-sound relationship.  Remember, we are training the brain, building “pathways” in the brain.  When these neural pathways are developed, reading can take less than half a second.   Therefore, it is important to organize how we teach so students can organize how they learn. We want to work with the brain, not against it. The vowel clustering teaching approach presents a visual and oral picture that struggling students can immediately identify with.  Visually, students match words by how they sound not by how they are spelled.  This teaches children that words can be pronounced one way but spelled another.  This visual-auditory learning technique allows students to both see and hear letter sounds (phonemes).   
 
Read More: Vowel Clustering Works Better Than Phonics
 
Vowel clustering also teaches handwriting because it is very important for students to write words correctly as they practice reading, spelling, and matching written letters to oral sounds.  For more information on how vowel clustering works, watch for my forthcoming book, “Why Can’t We Teach Children to Read?  Oh but Wait, We Can.”  ​

​

The battle lines have been drawn.  Some politicians are demanding that schools open.  Others are saying, let’s be reasonable.  We simply cannot open the schools right now.
 
The Coronavirus Is Spreading

Florida just recorded more than 15,000 new cases of the coronavirus and that, unfortunately, is a one-day high for the United States.   
 
A teacher died after returning to the classroom.  Three public school teachers who were working in a shared summer classroom in Arizona tested positive for coronavirus last month.  Two are still sick.  One has died.  Each of the teachers wore masks, gloves, followed all social distancing rules, used hand sanitizer, and took every precaution.  As Jeff Gregorich, the Superintendent of Hayden Winkelman Unified School District said,
 
“…the three teachers were careful and still got Covid-19…..I think that's really the message or the concern that our staff has is we can't even keep our staff safe by themselves ... how are we going to keep 20 kids in a classroom safe? I just don't see how that's possible…. Many grandparents, wind up being caretakers to kids when they get off school- mom and dad are working and a lot of grandparents are even raising their grandchildren. So, many of these grandparents fall into this high risk category of being older with more health issues…. They have no business opening the schools to try and get back to a traditional classroom ... let's get through this pandemic first before we try to get back to normal."
 
My thoughts and prayers go out to the family and all of the families who have suffered and lost loved ones, but I’m very grateful that this family shared their story.  Too many people are still saying that coronavirus is a hoax, that it is not dangerous, that it is just a political trick.  Wrong.
 
The coronavirus pandemic is very, very real, and it is killing real people 
 
There is absolutely no way we can safely open schools in the fall for the children or the teachers and staff.  We must stop playing political games.  Politicians can no longer sit in their white ivory towers and ignore the daily statistics or deny that there is a lethal virus attacking our country.  People are dying.  We can’t save the economy until we stop coronavirus.

Earlier Post: Should Schools Reopen in the Fall?
 
Yes, I know that the American Academy of Pediatrics came out with a statement strongly saying that schools should reopen in the fall. They’ve now changed their story.  They now say only if it is safe and the coronavirus numbers are not surging.  There are very few places this week where the coronavirus numbers are not surging, so we obviously should ignore their advice.
 
Several schools have already announced that they plan to go against the recommendations coming out of the White House.
 
Florida first mandated opening.  Now, they say they’ll wait.
 
California is applying pressure, but the California Teachers Association is insisting on waiting until it is safe. David Fisher, president of the Sacramento City Teachers Association said,  
 
“We hope we don’t have to go there, but if it comes to it, we do retain the right to refuse to work under unsafe conditions…. The virus is raging, and the circumstances that we were thinking we might be dealing with in September only a few weeks ago seem to be changing by the day. It just is looking increasingly unlikely that we will be able to teach in person at any level when schools first open.”
 
A 61-year-old social studies teacher from Sarasota High School in Florida who is in her 27th year of teaching said, “I’m at an age where I am scared for my life…. What good is money if you are sick or dead?” 

Earlier Post: Helping Children Learn about Reading When the Schools Are Closed
 
Oh yes, the battle lines have definitely been drawn.  President. Trump has threatened to withhold funds to schools that do not do what he wants, but it doesn’t look like he actually has that power.  Betsy De Vos, Secretary of Education, has also made threats.  Vice President Pence is trying to bully the CDC, but fortunately they did not buckle under and rewrite the guidelines for the safe reopening of schools when the White House demanded that they do so.  
 
The New York Times also uncovered a document this week that says, 
 
“Since May, the C.D.C. website has cautioned that full reopening would be 'highest risk,' and that in both K-12 and higher education settings, the more people interact, 'and the longer that interaction, the higher the risk of Covid-19 spread.' The 'lowest risk,' the guidelines say, would be for students and teachers to attend virtual-only classes — an option the administration this week began a full-court press against.”
 
Dr. Thomas File, president of the Infectious Diseases Society of America, and Dr. Judith Feinberg, chair of HIV Medicine Association said in a joint statement,
 
"We will not gain control of this pandemic or successfully reopen the economy unless we protect people and public health first…. The safety of our children, their families, teachers and other school staff must be guiding factors in all school reopening decisions, and no school should be forced to open in a situation that presents unacceptable risks." 
 
Exactly how much evidence do we need that it would be unsafe to open schools in the fall? 

First and foremost, children need to relax, reduce their stress level, and simply have fun.  Actually, this is something we all need to do this summer.  This has been an extremely stressful spring, and the summer is not looking any better.  You may be asking, “How can we have fun? We can’t go anywhere.”
 
You can have fun at home. You just need to create your own fun.  No, not with computer games or by sitting in front of the TV.  Get active.  Use your creativity.

• If you’re able to get out in the yard, a backyard scavenger hunt can be a fun family activity.  Scavenger hunts can range from very simple—find something red….  Scavenger hunts can be fun as well as educational—find a plant that is green, identify the plant, and tell three things about it.  Each team can go around with a camera (phone), take pictures of each item they find, and then when it’s time to go into the shade or back inside the house, each team can look up items they found, identify and label each picture, and then read and learn something about the plant.  Learning really can be fun. You can finish off by planting some seeds or transplanting established plants in the garden to a new location.  The idea is to be active, outside, and working together as a family. 
• Even if we can’t go for a hike or to the gardening store this weekend for new plants, you might try growing a new plant from a cutting from one of your established yard plants.  The children will enjoy looking at the changes that occur each day.  Sweet potatoes and a jar of water are an all-time standard because the trick works every time.  I’m presently trying to grow a rose cutting in a potato.  I’m not sure that it will work, but I’m giving it a try. There are all kinds of suggestions online.  Find a plant in your yard.  Look up online to see if it can be transplanted.  Then, follow the directions.  Have fun.

​Don’t sit around just watching TV, playing video games, or saying, “I’m bored.”  Explore.
Find something new and learn all about it.  Yes, we’re stuck at home, but home can be a fun place to be.
 
Helping others and giving to others is one of the best ways we can help our children reduce their stress levels and feel happier during these difficult days.  Thinking of the needs of others is always a good idea.
 
Yes, I know that some children also need to be working on getting ready to go back to school in the fall.  In my next blog post, I’ll explore some fun ways to incorporate learning into your summer activities.