Higher education providers are currently experiencing unprecedented degrees of pressure, not only in terms of the constraints imposed by the current financial climate but in the increased expectations placed upon them by students, policymakers and the public. At the same time, they’re having to address the challenges posed by new technologies and workplace practices, environmental concerns and economic conditions, as well as by a growing focus on fair access to higher education.
Such issues are at the fore of the sector’s own debates. Recent HEPI blogs have, for example, focused on the importance of reasonable adjustments, the value of widening participation, the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals and institutional AI initiatives. Colleagues from GuildHE have written here and elsewhere about how specialist providers are essential to the delivery of the government’s industrial strategy – just as Universities UK has argued that graduates will play a vital role in that strategy, presenting an analysis which demonstrates that ‘growth sectors identified by the government in its industrial strategy require high levels of graduate skills across all regions and nations of the UK’.
These priorities reflect those of the UK government. When the Education Secretary for England wrote to providers in November, she said she expected them to ‘play a stronger role in expanding access and improving outcomes for disadvantaged students’, ‘make a stronger contribution to economic growth’, ‘play a greater civic role in their communities’ and ‘raise the bar further on teaching standards’.
Sector bodies and think tanks have produced valuable reports on these issues. But one lower-profile resource used by educators to anchor provision to such commitments is the Subject Benchmark Statement. This instrument plays a key role in demonstrating and underpinning how HEIs deliver the industry-aligned graduate skills essential for economic growth – those skills highlighted by GuildHE and Universities UK, and required by government strategies.
Subject Benchmark Statements are curated by QAA as the sector-led descriptors of taught disciplines. They describe the nature of study and the academic standards expected of graduates in specific subject areas – showing what graduates should know and be able to do at the end of their studies. Academic staff use them to inform the design, delivery and enhancement of programmes. They are included as key reference points in guidance on cyclical review in Scotland and Wales, and in institutions’ validation and assurance of provision across the UK.
They are created by panels of academic experts and representatives of employers and Professional, Statutory and Regulatory Bodies. At a time when providers are expected to demonstrate their contribution to the UK’s industrial strategy, they use industry expertise to determine the skillsets needed for professional success and economic growth. They inform prospective students of the career paths advanced by their subjects, tell prospective employers what they can expect from a graduate of those subjects and assure policymakers of the value of those subjects.
Today, we are publishing this year’s set of Subject Benchmark Statements: revised editions of the Statements for, Accounting, Education Studies, Finance, Music, and Philosophy, as well as for Librarianship, Information, Knowledge, Records & Archives Management, and Physics, Astronomy & Astrophysics; and a new Statement for Public Policy & Public Administration.
Key to the formulation of these Statements has been the development, through consultation with sector and industry stakeholders, of a set of themes which underpin their focus. These themes align with concerns shared by policymakers across the political spectrum. They include sustainability, access and success in higher education, graduate employability and artificial intelligence.
These emphases reflect not only the key expectations set by the Education Secretary last autumn, but also government priorities in such areas as green prosperity and AI. Subject Benchmark Statements also chart strategies for the enhancement of educational quality the Secretary of State has called for. They function alongside other key sector reference points – such as the Qualifications Frameworks and the Quality Code – to underpin the standards and enhance the quality of higher education. They are a mechanism by which programmes assure and articulate their educational, economic and social value and demonstrate the continuing relevance of their subjects to governments and the public.
To see how this works, it’s worth taking a moment to look at an example from our new set of Statements. This is the first time that there’s been a separate Subject Benchmark Statement dedicated to Public Policy & Public Administration (a subject well suited to this forum), so let’s take a look at that.
Its subject panel included three representatives of the Local Government Association, alongside practitioners and educators from 13 universities. An emphasis on industry impact shines through its 25 pages. It includes articulations of core skills at varying levels of study and attainment, and explains the purposes of a degree in its discipline, as well as strategies to promote accessibility and sustainable development. It also details the approaches to be taken by the discipline in relation to professional employability, both in terms of broad expectations and in relation to its specific engagement with artificial intelligence.
In this context, it expects that ‘while degrees will have the capacity to develop career-ready students, they must also equip sector-experienced students with the knowledge, behaviours and skills that will enable them to develop and progress within the workplace’ and that ‘courses may provide and/or require opportunities for students to work individually or collaboratively with employers and/or relevant public sector stakeholders’.
It adds that its degrees should ‘promote employability in a labour market that is becoming increasingly shaped by artificial intelligence’ and ‘prepare and equip students for work environments that require professionals to work alongside smart machines’ – and that therefore ‘to ensure students can complete their studies responsibly and with integrity, and be equipped to enter a world increasingly impacted by generative AI, Public Policy and/or Public Administration degrees must recognise and respond to employer and workplace needs’.
Each Subject Benchmark Statement underpins the continuing relevance and value of its discipline to industry and students alike. As the University of Birmingham’s Dr Karin Bottom (who chaired the Public Policy & Public Administration panel) has emphasized, one of the key impacts of a Subject Benchmark Statement is that it ‘gives programmes credibility with organisations that may fund people who take these degrees and that may employ people who’ve taken these degrees’ – and ‘gives employers and practitioner groups a reference point as to what practitioners need to know’.
At a time when many academic subject areas have come under increasing pressure (whether in terms of their commercial viability, their contribution to economic growth, or the careers they support), it remains crucial for the sector, students, taxpayers and policymakers to ensure that their value is not only expressed but also underpinned by benchmarking at the level of specific disciplines.
And, as policymakers have recently stressed the need to prevent the emergence of regional ‘cold spots’ in specific subject areas, these sector-led, industry-informed, expert-written documents can also help, in the formulation of such policies, to hone a closer understanding of the impacts and contributions of their disciplines.
“Global law firms have for years played an outsized role in undermining the judicial process and in the destruction of bedrock American principles.” —Executive Order (3-14-25)
“Law firms refuse to represent Trump opponents in the wake of his attacks” — The Washington Post (3-25-25)
The wolf is at the door.
Those who do not yet realize this may be forgiven for perhaps two reasons: They do not know the wolf is ravenous, and they do not know the door is ajar.
To get but a whiff of this, just read Brad Karp’s March 23 memo to his colleagues at the Paul Weiss firm, from which the title of this edition of FAN gets its title.
Also this, from MSNBC legal correspondent Lisa Rubin:
[The attacks on law firms] began with Trump issuing executive actions punishing three firms — Covington & Burling, which did not react; Perkins Coie, which fought back and won a partial temporary restraining order; and Paul Weiss, which ultimately capitulated to a deal announced last Thursday, the terms of which are still a matter of some debate. But the president has now directed Attorney General Pam Bondi, in a memo issued Friday night, to seek sanctions “against attorneys and law firms who engage in frivolous, unreasonable, and vexatious litigation against the United States.”
Now back to the Paul, Weiss controversy.
A little background at the outset to help set the retributive stage: According to Wikipedia, Karp “is a bundler for Democratic Party presidential candidates . . . having raised sums for the presidential campaigns of Kamala Harris, Cory Booker, Joe Biden, Amy Klobuchar, and others.”
In other words, if Trump was out for political retribution, Karp was a perfect target. And then consider this: One of Karp’s former partners was Mark Pomerantz, author of “People vs. Donald Trump: An Inside Account,” which details the attempt to prosecute former president Donald Trump, written by one of the lawyers who worked on the case and who resigned in protest when Manhattan’s district attorney refused to act.
And now on to the Executive Order from March 14, “Addressing Risks from Paul Weiss.” Excerpts below:
In 2022, Paul Weiss hired unethical attorney Mark Pomerantz, who had previously left Paul Weiss to join the Manhattan District Attorney’s office solely to manufacture a prosecution against me and who, according to his co-workers, unethically led witnesses in ways designed to implicate me. After being unable to convince even Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg that a fraud case was feasible, Pomerantz engaged in a media campaign to gin up support for this unwarranted prosecution.
Additionally, Paul Weiss discriminates against its own employees on the basis of race and other categories prohibited by civil rights laws. Paul Weiss, along with nearly every other large, influential, or industry leading law firm, makes decisions around ‘targets’ based on race and sex.
My Administration is committed to ending such unlawful discrimination perpetrated in the name of “diversity, equity, and inclusion” policies and ensuring that Federal benefits support the laws and policies of the United States, including those laws and policies promoting our national security and respecting the democratic process.
Now, the Weiss law firm’s memo in response, from Brad Karp:
Brad Karp
Only several days ago, our firm faced an existential crisis. The executive order could easily have destroyed our firm. It brought the full weight of the government down on our firm, our people, and our clients. In particular, it threatened our clients with the loss of their government contracts, and the loss of access to the government, if they continued to use the firm as their lawyers. And in an obvious effort to target all of you as well as the firm, it raised the specter that the government would not hire our employees.
We were hopeful that the legal industry would rally to our side, even though it had not done so in response to executive orders targeting other firms. We had tried to persuade other firms to come out in public support of Covington and Perkins Coie. And we waited for firms to support us in the wake of the President’s executive order targeting Paul, Weiss. Disappointingly, far from support, we learned that certain other firms were seeking to exploit our vulnerabilities by aggressively soliciting our clients and recruiting our attorneys.
We initially prepared to challenge the executive order in court, and a team of Paul, Weiss attorneys prepared a lawsuit in the finest traditions of the firm. But it became clear that, even if we were successful in initially enjoining the executive order in litigation, it would not solve the fundamental problem, which was that clients perceived our firm as being persona non grata with the Administration. We could prevent the executive order from taking effect, but we couldn’t erase it. Clients had told us that they were not going to be able to stay with us, even though they wanted to. It was very likely that our firm would not be able to survive a protracted dispute with the Administration.
Commentary:
President Donald Trump’s crackdown on lawyers is having a chilling effect on his opponents’ ability to defend themselves or challenge his actions in court, according to people who say they are struggling to find legal representation as a result of his challenges.
[Such executive orders and pressured settlements set] an ominous precedent for future presidents to exploit. . . . [H]ow can a lawyer who is considering representing a politically controversial client know that she will not be targeted the next time control of the White House changes hands? The safest course of action will be to avoid representing clients of any political salience, right or left, even if their cause is just.
Related
Constitutional scholars on the Trump Administration’s threats against Columbia University
We write as constitutional scholars — some liberal and some conservative — who seek to defend academic freedom and the First Amendment in the wake of the federal government’s recent treatment of Columbia University.
The First Amendment protects speech many of us find wrongheaded or deeply offensive, including anti-Israel advocacy and even antisemitic advocacy. The government may not threaten funding cuts as a tool to pressure recipients into suppressing such viewpoints. This is especially so for universities, which should be committed to respecting free speech.
At the same time, the First Amendment of course doesn’t protect antisemitic violence, true threats of violence, or certain kinds of speech that may properly be labeled ‘harassment.’ Title VI rightly requires universities to protect their students and other community members from such behavior. But the lines between legally unprotected harassment on the one hand and protected speech on the other are notoriously difficult to draw and are often fact-specific. In part because of that, any sanctions imposed on universities for Title VI violations must follow that statute’s well-established procedural rules, which help make clear what speech is sanctionable and what speech is constitutionally protected.
Yet the administration’s March 7 cancellation of $400 million in federal funding to Columbia University did not adhere to such procedural safeguards. Neither did its March 13 ultimatum stipulating that Columbia make numerous changes to its academic policies — including the demand that, within one week, it “provide a full plan” to place an entire “department under academic receivership for a minimum of five years” — as “a precondition for formal negotiations regarding Columbia University’s continued financial relationship with the United States government.”
Signatories
Steven G. Calabresi Clayton J. and Henry R. Barber Professor of Law, Northwestern Law School
Erwin Chemerinsky Dean and Jesse H. Choper Distinguished Professor of Law, Berkeley Law School
David Cole Hon. George J. Mitchell Professor in Law and Public Policy, Georgetown University Law Center
Michael C. Dorf Robert S. Stevens Professor of Law, Cornell Law School
Richard Epstein Laurence A. Tisch Professor of Law, NYU School of Law
Owen Fiss Sterling Professor Emeritus of Law, Yale Law School
Aziz Huq Frank and Bernice J. Greenberg Professor of Law, University of Chicago Law School
Pamela Karlan Kenneth and Harle Montgomery Professor of Public Interest Law, Stanford Law School
Randall Kennedy Michael R. Klein Professor of Law, Harvard Law School
Genevieve Lakier Professor of Law, Herbert and Marjorie Fried Teaching Scholar, University of Chicago Law School
Michael McConnell Richard and Frances Mallery Professor of Law, Stanford Law School
Michael Paulsen Distinguished University Chair and Professor, St. Thomas Law School
Robert Post Sterling Professor of Law, Yale Law School
David Rabban Dahr Jamail, Randall Hage Jamail, and Robert Lee Jamail Regents Chair in Law, University of Texas Law School
Geoffrey R. Stone Edward H. Levi Distinguished Service Professor of Law, University of Chicago Law School
Nadine Strossen John Marshall Harlan II Professor of Law Emerita, New York Law School
Eugene Volokh Thomas M. Siebel Senior Fellow, Hoover Institution, Stanford University
Keith Whittington David Boies Professor of Law, Yale Law School
SCOTUS denies review in case urging that Sullivan be overruled
Wynn v. Associated Press (issue: Whether this Court should overturn Sullivan’s actual-malice standard or, at a minimum, overrule Curtis Publishing Co.’s expansion of it to public figures)
On the Trump administration targeting campuses
The United States is home to the best collection of research universities in the world. Those universities have contributed tremendously to America’s prosperity, health, and security. They are magnets for outstanding talent from throughout the country and around the world. The Trump administration’s recent attack on Columbia University puts all of that at risk, presenting the greatest threat to American universities since the Red Scare of the 1950s. Every American should be concerned.
Until recently, it was a little-known program to help Black and Latino students pursue business degrees.
But in January, conservative strategist Christopher Rufo flagged the program known as The PhD Project in social media posts that caught the attention of Republican politicians. The program is now at the center of a Trump administration campaign to root out diversity, equity and inclusion programs in higher education.
The U.S. Education Department last week said it was investigating dozens of universities for alleged racial discrimination, citing ties to the nonprofit organization. That followed a warning a month earlier that schools could lose federal money over “race-based preferences” in admissions, scholarships or any aspect of student life.
The investigations left some school leaders startled and confused, wondering what prompted the inquiries. Many scrambled to distance themselves from The PhD Project, which has aimed to help diversify the business world and higher education faculty.
Zoom webinar on strategies to combat attacks on free speech in academia
Thursday, March 27, 2025, 1:00 – 2:00 PM ET
As efforts to silence dissent grow more aggressive, the immediate and long-term threats to our constitutional freedoms — especially in educational institutions — cannot be ignored.
This virtual panel will bring together top legal minds and policy experts to examine how these actions affect student activists, journalists, and marginalized communities. Together, we’ll explore the legal strategies needed to safeguard First Amendment rights and resist the erosion of civil liberties.
Featured Panelists: Maria Kari, Human Rights Attorney Rep. Delia Ramirez (IL-03) Jenna Leventoff, Senior Policy Counsel, ACLU Stephen F. Rohde, MPAC Special Advisor on Free Speech and the First Amendment Whether you’re a student, educator, advocate, or supporter of civil rights, this is a conversation you won’t want to miss.
Register today and join us in defending the values that define our democracy.
Whittington on diversity statements and college hiring
Keith Whittington
The University of California is the godfather of the use of so-called diversity statements in faculty hiring. I have a piece forthcoming at the Nebraska Law Review arguing that such diversity statement requirements for general faculty hiring at state universities violate the First Amendment and violate academic freedom principles everywhere. It seems quite likely that in practice such diversity statement requirements are also used to facilitate illegal racial discrimination in faculty hiring.
The University of California system’s board of regents has now put an end to the use of such diversity statements at those schools. This is a truly remarkable development. Not unreasonably, this decision is being put in the context of the Trump administration’s extraordinary attack on Columbia University, a move that I think is both lawless and itself a threat to academic freedom. But there’s no question that it got the attention of university leaders across the country, and if it encourages some of them to rededicate themselves to their core institutional mission and its central values then at least some good will come of it. So silver linings and all that.
Trump rails against portrait at the Colorado Capitol
Institute for Free Speech files brief in campaign disclosure-fee case
The case is Sullivan v. Texas Ethics Commission. The issue in the case is whether — and if so, under what circumstances — the First Amendment permits the government to require ordinary citizens to register and pay a fee to communicate with their government representatives.
Amicus brief here. Counsel of record: Alan Gura. The Institute’s brief argues that the 1954 precedent of United States v. Harriss no longer reflects modern First Amendment jurisprudence and fails to protect the right to speak anonymously about matters of public policy.
Forthcoming book by Princeton’s president on campus free speech
The president of Princeton, a constitutional scholar, reveals how colleges are getting free speech on campuses right and how they can do better to nurture civil discourse and foster mutual respect
Conversations about higher education teem with accusations that American colleges and universities are betraying free speech, indoctrinating students with left-wing dogma, and censoring civil discussions. But these complaints are badly misguided.
In Terms of Respect, constitutional scholar and Princeton University president Christopher L. Eisgruber argues that colleges and universities are largely getting free speech right. Today’s students engage in vigorous discussions on sensitive topics and embrace both the opportunity to learn and the right to protest. Like past generations, they value free speech, but, like all of us, they sometimes misunderstand what it requires. Ultimately, the polarization and turmoil visible on many campuses reflect an American civic crisis that affects universities along with the rest of society. But colleges, Eisgruber argues, can help to promote civil discussion in this raucous, angry world — and they can show us how to embrace free speech without sacrificing ideals of equality, diversity, and respect.
Urgent and original, Terms of Respect is an ardent defense of our universities, and a hopeful vision for navigating the challenges that free speech provokes for us all.
Forthcoming scholarly article on AI and the First Amendment
This paper challenges the assumption that courts should grant outputs from large generative AI models, such as GPT-4 and Gemini, First Amendment protections. We argue that because these models lack intentionality, their outputs do not constitute speech as understood in the context of established legal precedent, so there can be no speech to protect. Furthermore, if the model outputs are not speech, users cannot claim a First Amendment right to receive the outputs.
We also argue that extending First Amendment rights to AI models would not serve the fundamental purposes of free speech, such as promoting a marketplace of ideas, facilitating self-governance, or fostering self-expression. In fact, granting First Amendment protections to AI models would be detrimental to society because it would hinder the government’s ability to regulate these powerful technologies effectively, potentially leading to the unchecked spread of misinformation and other harms.
2024-2025 SCOTUS term: Free expression and related cases
Cases decided
Villarreal v. Alaniz(Petition granted. Judgment vacated and case remanded for further consideration in light of Gonzalez v. Trevino, 602 U. S. ___ (2024) (per curiam))
Murphy v. Schmitt (“The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted. The judgment is vacated, and the case is remanded to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit for further consideration in light of Gonzalez v. Trevino, 602 U. S. ___ (2024) (per curiam).”)
TikTok Inc. and ByteDance Ltd v. Garland (The challenged provisions of the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act do not violate petitioners’ First Amendment rights.)
Review granted
Pending petitions
Petitions denied
Free speech related
Thompson v. United States (decided: 3-21-25/ 9-0 w special concurrences by Alito and Jackson) (interpretation of 18 U. S. C. §1014 re “false statements”)
This article is part of First Amendment News, an editorially independent publication edited by Ronald K. L. Collins and hosted by FIRE as part of our mission to educate the public about First Amendment issues. The opinions expressed are those of the article’s author(s) and may not reflect the opinions of FIRE or Mr. Collins.
In my classroom, I frequently encounter students expressing their opinions: “How is this relevant to the real world?” or “Why should I care? I will never use this.” This highlights the need for educators to emphasize real-world applications across all subjects.
As an educator, I consistently strive to illustrate the practical applications of geography beyond the classroom walls. By incorporating real-world experiences and addressing problems, I aim to engage students and encourage them to devise solutions to these challenges. For instance, when discussing natural resources in geography, I pose a thought-provoking question: “What is something you cannot live without?” As students investigate everyday items, I emphasize that most of these products originate from nature at some point, prompting a discussion on the “true cost” of these goods.
Throughout the unit, I invite a guest speaker who shares insights about their job duties and provides information related to environmental issues. This interaction helps students connect the dots, understanding that the products they use have origins in distant places, such as the Amazon rainforest. Despite it being thousands of miles away, I challenge students to consider why they should care.
As students engage in a simulation of the rainforest, they begin to comprehend the alarming reality of its destruction, driven by the increasing demand for precious resources such as medicines, fruits, and beef. By the conclusion of the unit, students will participate in a debate, utilizing their research skills to argue for or against deforestation, exploring its implications for resources and products in relation to their daily lives. This approach not only enhances their understanding of geography but also creates a real-world connection that fosters a sense of responsibility toward the environment.
Creating a foundation to build upon
Engaging in academic discussions and navigating through academic content is essential for fostering a critical thinking mentality among students. However, it is often observed that this learning does not progress to deeper levels of thought. Establishing a solid foundation is crucial before advancing toward more meaningful and complex ideas.
For instance, in our geography unit on urban sprawl, we start by understanding the various components related to urban sprawl. As we delve into the topic, I emphasize the importance of connecting our lessons to the local community. I pose the question: How can we identify an issue within the town of Lexington and address it while ensuring we do not contribute to urban sprawl? Without a comprehensive foundation, students struggle to elevate their thinking to more sophisticated levels. Therefore, it is imperative to build this groundwork to enable students to engage in higher-order thinking effectively.
Interdisciplinary approaches
Incorporating an interdisciplinary approach can significantly enrich the learning process for students. When students recognize the connections between different subjects, they gain a deeper appreciation for the relevance of their education. According to Moser et. al (2019), “Integrative teaching benefits middle-level learners as it potentially increases student engagement, motivation, and achievement. It provides learners with the opportunity to synthesize knowledge by exploring topics and ideas through multiple lenses.” This method emphasizes the importance of making meaningful connections that deepen students’ comprehension. As they engage with the content from different perspectives, students will apply their learning in real-world contexts.
For instance, principles from science can be linked to literature they are studying in English class. Similarly, concepts from physics can be applied to understand advancements in medical studies. By fostering these connections, students are encouraged to think critically and appreciate the interrelated nature of knowledge.
Incorporating technology within classrooms
In today’s digital world, where technology is readily accessible, it is crucial for classroom learning to align with current technological trends and innovations. Educators who do not incorporate technology into their teaching practices are missing an opportunity to enhance student learning experiences. In my class, I have students explore their designated area using Google Earth, which we previously outlined. Each student selected a specific region to concentrate on during their analysis. This process involves identifying areas that require improvement and discussing how it can benefit the community. Additionally, we examine how these changes can help limit urban sprawl and reduce traffic congestion.
We have moved beyond the era of relying solely on paper copies and worksheets; the focus now is on adapting to change and providing the best opportunities for students to express themselves and expand their knowledge. As Levin & Wadmany (2014) observe, “some teachers find that technology encourages greater student-centeredness, greater openness toward multiple perspectives on problems, and greater willingness to experiment in their teaching.” This highlights the necessity for teachers to evolve into facilitators of learning, acting as guides who support students taking ownership of their learning.
Strategies for implementation
1. Start with the “why”: Teachers should critically consider the significance of their instructional approaches: Why is this method or content essential for students’ learning? Having a clear vision of the desired learning outcomes enables educators plan effectively and what instructional strategies to use. This intentionality is crucial.
2. Use authentic materials: Incorporating meaningful text that involves real-world concepts can significantly enhance students’ engagement. For instance, in social studies class discussing renewable energy can lead to academic discussion or projects where students research about local initiatives in their community.
3. Promote critical thinking: Encourage students to engage in critical thinking by asking open-ended questions, creating opportunities for debates to challenge their ideas, and urging them to articulate and defend their viewpoints.
4. Encourage collaboration: Students excel in collaborative learning environment, such as group projects and peer reviews where they can engage with their classmates. These activities allow them to learn from each other and view different perspectives.
5. Provide ongoing feedback: Providing constructive feedback is essential for helping students identify their strengths and areas for improvements. By having planned check-ins, teachers can tailor their instruction to ensure that they are meeting the academic needs of individual students.
References
Levin, T., & Wadmany, R. (2006). Teachers’ Beliefs and Practices in Technology-based Classrooms: A Developmental View. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 39(2), 157–181. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2006.10782478
Moser, K. M., Ivy, J., & Hopper, P. F. (2019). Rethinking content teaching at the middle level: An interdisciplinary approach. Middle School Journal, 50(2), 17–27. https://doi.org/10.1080/00940771.2019.1576579
Skyler Stoll, Middle School Teacher, South Carolina
Skyler Stoll is a graduate student at the University of South Carolina and is a 7th grade social studies teacher in South Carolina.
Latest posts by eSchool Media Contributors (see all)