Presented at ISEC 2000

Developing Children's Attitudes to 'Special Needs'

Carole Smart - Joint SENCO and learning support assistant at a UK primary school

Contributions from: Phil Bayliss

Abstract

The study investigates the role of children's attitudes to special educational needs (SEN) as a foundation for successful inclusion in schools. The study starts from the premise that proactive intervention produces significant change in children's attitudes to SEN and focuses on two parallel classes of mixed year 5/6 pupils in a primary school in the South west of England; their counterparts in a neighbouring special school for children with moderate and severe learning difficulties, and their teachers. A total of 52 children were involved and a period of three months covered the research design.

Two groups of primary children were supported in a PSE programme which took place over an academic year and focused on the theme of 'disability' and 'inclusion'. Both groups of children were supported through the use of materials (specifically a video 'Educating Peter'(Blackburn, Virginia) which explored the issue of 'disability'. One group of children (the experimental group) were also involved in working with children from the neighbouring special school .

The chosen methodology employed a quasi-experimental design using questionnaires, sentence completions and video-ed circle time, which investigated the children's cognitive understanding of disability, affective responses to it and connotative (behavioural) intentions of actions towards children with disabilities. Analysis of quantitative data showed positive shifts in attitudes from both the control and experience groups, which are exemplified in two case studies.

The study also achieved positive influences on those involved in the research process and the process continues to widen the programme of interaction initiated in the research design to build stronger relationships between the two schools involved. The study draws conclusions about the nature of proactive work in the field in 'inclusion' and argues that supported, direct experience of working together within mixed groups of children can produce positive benefits in terms of their perceptions of each and their tolerance and understanding of difference. It is argued that these outcomes support better 'inclusive outcomes' for schools than 'simple integration'.

INTRODUCTION

Four years ago I began to study inclusion at the University of Exeter, under Dr Phil Bayliss. At the time of undertaking my research I had worked for many years in an environment where confident children and adults enjoyed high levels of self-esteem which enabled them to accept any pupil of different race, religion or gender as well as various kinds and degrees of special needs as "one of them", and worked and learned happily together. The knowledge that we were all bound together as part of, and contributing to, a common culture within a school, was accepted and sublimated into our approach to relationships and educational practice at every level. However, over the last few years there have been many changes in society which have led to an increasing number of unhappy and insecure children. So at a time when social inclusion was moving to the forefront of political debate, I chose to investigate the role of attitudes to special educational needs as a foundation for successful inclusion in schools.

THE MAINSTREAM SCHOOL

The village primary school, Wildwood, in which I work has for decades embraced a philosophy of inclusion shaped by its position close to an internationally famous centre for experimental education and the arts. The local people were regularly involved in multi-cultural activities and became part of a liberal tradition which accepted a diverse range of people and lifestyles. Pupils at the school were children of artists, musicians, hippies, punks and new age travellers, as well as professional people who had left the stressful city life to seek an elusive rural idyll. This diverse mix joined those who, like their parents and grandparents before them, came from the scattered farming community.

To address the needs of children from such varied social backgrounds has produced a tradition within the school of child-centred education committed to valuing the individual and the contribution each could make to the group, the class and the school. There is a general consensus within the school that needs are not fixed: it is not only the special needs of a few, but the learning needs of all that are dynamic and complex, unpredictable and uncertain - not a fixed paradigm but ecosystemic. This view runs in tandem with a recognition of what all children have in common, rather than what divides them. The school has a history of accepting children with a wide range of disabilities and handicaps. The most high profile being a paraplegic boy and a girl with cerebral palsy, both confined to wheelchairs.

THE SPECIAL SCHOOL

Situated on the other side of a car park and sharing an adjacent playing field, is Netherset, a special school for children with moderate and severe learning difficulties aged from four to sixteen years. Those with Moderate Learning Difficulties (MLD) transfer to segregated or mainstream provision at eleven. A very small minority live locally, while most are bussed in from a wide area.

Over the last two decades I have been involved with several children who had short educational programmes across the school year at our neighbouring special school while remaining a member of the primary school. A few of them transferred permanently to the special school but for others there was definitely a problem of having a foot in both schools, but belonging to neither: they were unable to form close friendships in either school. We also attempted to introduce one or two children from the special school into our KS1 classes but this was even less successful.

CONSTRUCT DEFINITION

Special Educational Needs

"The term 'special educational needs' can be misleading and lead to unhelpful assumptions. It may suggest that children with SEN are a readily defined group, with common characteristics. It is sometimes used as though it applied only to the 3% of pupils with a statement of SEN. It is sometimes used of children from disadvantaged families. All this is far from the truth." (Excellence for All Children, DfEE 1997)

Excellence for All Children (DfEE 1997) also points out that a child might be recognised as having special needs in one school but not in another, depending on local and individual circumstances. This supports my belief, that it is the ethos and culture of a school exemplified daily in the attitudes and behaviour of adults and children which helps to define the increasingly slippery and elusive concept of SEN.

Attitudes

Our perception of any phenomenon shapes our attitude to it. Perceptions are built up over a period of time and come from a variety of sources. These can include: observation, experience, superstition, ignorance, second-hand accounts, the prejudices of others, social and political agendas, exposure to topical obsessions and the media. But they begin in the home, influenced by the family, and are reinforced or challenged at school. Over time attitudes are shaped and changed; an unending process. As my knowledge and understanding of the issues surrounding the debate on integration/inclusion has deepened, I have come to realise that to impose the integration of disabled or handicapped pupils on mainstream children could prove disastrous. To lay the foundations for successful outcomes and create the conditions necessary for integration to lead to full inclusion, requires careful preparation and planning. But even before specific moves are made to welcome a particular child into a class, a school needs to examine the attitudes to Special Educational Needs (SEN) of all staff and children.

Impairment

Loss of structure or function.

Disability

The impact of an impairment.

Handicap

The impact of any impairment or disability which comes from the negative evaluation of it by others. However, there is a widespread acceptance that handicap and disability are interchangeable.

Integration

The placing of a student with SEN in a mainstream school.

Inclusion

The embracing of all students, regardless of disability or handicap, as valued members of the school community. For some, integration and inclusion are synonymous, but for children with SEN, whether their special needs are physical, intellectual, sensory or emotional, to be merely integrated into a mainstream school is not enough. To be physically placed in a non-segregated environment cannot address the needs of the "whole child". To be fully included in the academic, psychological and social life of the school, handicapped pupils must feel that they contribute to it and are valued members of it. Personal growth for all children, regardless of any or no special needs comes from interdependence, negotiating and sharing experiences which creates a joint culture and provides a real preparation for adult life.

METHODOLOGY

To test my hypothesis that proactive intervention produces significant change in children's attitudes to SEN, I employed a quasi-experimental design to investigate the children's cognitive understanding of disability, affective responses to it and connotative (behavioural) intentions of actions towards children with disabilities. I used questionnaires, sentence completions and videoed circle time to collect data which when analysed showed positive shifts in attitudes from both the control and experience groups. But the effect of a programme of interaction with their handicapped peers further enhanced the results of the experience group. Two classes of Year 5/6 pupils in the mainstream school were involved along with their counterparts in a neighbouring special school.

I employed cross-sectional and longitudinal triangulation, utilising methodological triangulation: the same method on different occasions and different methods on the same objective study. I looked for correlation between and validation of, qualitative and quantitative data in an attempt to map and explain any changes in attitudes ( Campbell & Stanley 1963, Cohen & Manion 1980, Vulliamy & Webb 1992).

RESEARCH DESIGN

The research design incorporates the use of multiple baseline conditions, utilising questionnaires, sentence completions, video recorded discussions, a video and interaction between age appropriate mainstream and special school classes.

Table 1: Research Design

THE CHILDREN INVOLVED

Shown in the table below is the distribution by age and gender of the two mainstream Y5/6 classes. Two Y6 boys in HJ's class and one Y5 in LA's had statements specifying learning difficulties.

Table 2: Mainstream Class Distribution.

The two classes in the special school are roughly parallel and are distributed as shown in Table 3. In CJ's class, two of the girls have a hearing loss, one of the boys has Down's Syndrome and two boys and one girl have behavioural problems.

In PV's class one boy has a severe hearing loss, two boys have behavioural problems and one of those has fits. During the period of my research, one girl broke her leg and used a walking frame indoors and was pushed in a wheelchair between the two schools.

Table 3: Special School Class Distribution.

THE ADULTS INVOLVED

I was fortunate to have the full co-operation of both mainstream class teachers who were very keen to have the opportunity to learn alongside their pupils and take advantage of the help and support offered by the special school staff. The two classes shared a Learning Support Assistant (LSA) for 0.7 of the week to support statemented children with learning difficulties in each class.

The two special school teachers were pleased to have the opportunity to lead the way in establishing closer links between the two schools. They gave freely of their time to help plan and implement the programme of interaction. The two classes, plus one other, share support from two full time and one part time LSAs.

OVERVIEW OF METHODOLOGY

Following Lewis's (1995) model, taken from the Link 11 project, set out below is an overview of my methodology.

1) Data collected from questionnaires, sentence completion and video taped discussion resulting in 174 scripts and 2hrs 36 mins of video.

2) Log Book kept throughout the period recording planning meetings, inter-active sessions, visits, and any other relevant details.

3) Views of the two heads, four class teachers, supply teacher, student on final teaching practice, support staff, and a sample of 3 Wildwood parents, obtained from closely matched questionnaires at the end of the period of interaction. This resulted in 13 scripts from adults.

4) Perceptions of the Netherset pupils gleaned from overheard comments, conversations with me and verbal reports from their teachers. Reflections of Wildwood pupils provided by free writing.

CHRONOLOGY OF PROGRAMME

Table 4: Programme of interaction.

Twelve activities were planned and included:

The agreed aim in all the sessions was to provide a relaxed and happy atmosphere with the chance to exchange teaching and learning roles amongst the pupils, with the objective of getting to know each other and developing deeper understanding.

Log Book Entries covering the period of the research programme

04-11-97 I gave HJ and LA a copy of the base-line questionnaire.

10-11-97 Meeting at Netherset with PV and CJ - they gave me their class lists and details of the pupils' special needs and relevant background information. One child must not be photographed or videoed.

11-11-97 Videoed HJ class circle-time (1 hr 25 mins).

12-11-97 LA unwell, not in school therefore no circle-time.

13-11-97 LA back at school but feeling stressed by the added pressure of the Netherset interaction. I asked HJ to swap roles with LA and for her class to become the Action Group - she was happy to agree. I videoed LA's class circle-time (1 hr 11 mins). 1.45-3pm Hand-ball tournament at Netherset. The children were divided into mixed teams of 5 or 6 and given football shirts. They had five minutes to introduce themselves in their groups and choose a name for their team. CJ refereed and HJ announced the teams in pairs. The atmosphere was very sporting, goals were applauded with good-natured cheering and the teams shook hands after every match. The two top scoring teams played off to find a winner - they drew. Drinks and biscuits followed and Wildwood children were shown around by the Netherset pupils. CJ invited me to Netherset next week to a Heinemann presentation.

14-11-97 PV, CJ, HJ and I at Netherset to discuss and plan the programme in more detail.

17-11-97 Three staff from Wildwood joined staff at Netherset for Heinemann presentation.

18-11-97 10 - 11.30 am HJ's class to see CJ's class assembly and stay on for playtime. HJ and her class very impressed by CJ's class assembly. Surprised by the high standard of content and presentation. Ordered books from the library which feature children with disabilities. List taken from Lewis (1995).

24-11-97 1.30 - 3pm Half HJ's class make masks with CJ's class at Netherset. Other half joined by PV's class at Wildwood to make badges, learn a German song and a circle-dance. KL and Wildwood pupils delighted with their visit to Netherset. Wildwood children surprised to be taught a German song by PV and her class. All enjoyed the dancing.

01-12-97 1.30-3pm As above (24-11-97) but reversed so all the children have enjoyed both. CJ suggests we have the news-letter ready to hand out to the children on Monday. 03-12-97 I took two Wildwood children to help two Netherset boys write the newsletter. I invited the Wildwood Head and governor for SEN to party.

05-12-97 Children of both schools given a copy of the newsletter - one A4 sheet, (appendix 3). One of the Wildwood boys named it "Chain Reaction".

08-12-97 1.30-3pm Christmas party at Wildwood for all three classes, wearing the badges and masks made at the workshops and doing the circle dance they had learned together. Successful party but we had to rush the eats and drinks. A pity it couldn't have been longer. LA (control group teacher) came to see the fun and took some photographs. Head of Netherset joined us for half an hour.

11-12-97 10-30-11.30am Netherset Carol service at the Parish Church. HJ's class joined PV's and CJ's to sing "Oh Tannenbaum". Another positive experience for the action group at the Netherset Carol Service.

16-12-97 Wildwood staff invited to Netherset for mince pies, (first time ever). In conversation with the Netherset Head, we agreed that we should keep up the momentum begun with this project, and plan a programme for next term early in the new year.

QUESTIONNAIRES

When drawing up my questionnaire I was guided by Wade & Moore (1993) and began by focussing on what the children might be asking themselves when introduced to the idea of working with disabled or handicapped pupils from the special school.

Have I met anyone who is handicapped?

What is meant by handicap?

Why are we going?

Do I want to work at Netherset?

How will I get on with them?

What will I get out of it?

What if we had a disabled child in our class?

Would I have to help them?

Would it affect what we do?

After several drafts I reduced the questionnaire to thirteen statements which were divided into three components, cognitive, affective, and connotative, plus an introductory personal section to put the children at ease and boost their confidence in dealing with a novel format. I marked the scripts using the Likert Scale and produced response ratios (Wade and Moore 1993).

SENTENCE COMPLETIONS

To provide a second source of data, I gave the children three sentences to complete, complying with the three components of the questionnaire. The first, cognitive; "Netherset is for…."; the second, affective; "I am going to work with children at Netherset so that…"; and the third, connotative; "When I am at Netherset I would like to…". I used content analysis (Patten 1980) to collate the data, and produced results to complement the quantitative data collected from the questionnaires (Fitz-Gibbon and Morris 1987).

VIDEO

"Educating Peter" is a thirty minute video providing an account of a boy Peter, with Down's syndrome, and his integration into an American class of seventeen primary age children.

The teacher gives her candid views of coping with such an unknown quantity. A lot of her time is spent in crisis management as we see Peter rolling around the floor, licking his classmates and picking up a child's violin. She and the children see his unpredictable behaviour as "scary". The children and teacher agree to counter Peter's attention seeking by praising him when things go well, and by trying to ignore all but his most disruptive behaviour.

Seven weeks into the term the teacher is trying to stand back and allow the children to cope if they can. Seven months into the year they all agree that Peter is making progress and at Sports Day they are cheering him on. The children say, "He changed because we changed." "We changed our minds about him". "You think you're teaching Peter things, but he's teaching you."

I used this video to give the children the opportunity to reflect on and share their feelings about a handicapped peer, without feeling personally involved.

RESULTS OF THE INVESTIGATION

Cognitive component of the questionnaires

This showed that two thirds of the children in each class knew someone disabled or handicapped and many were aware of named conditions.

Table 5: Raw scores and percentages for Question 8: "I have heard of children with…"

Affective component of the questionnaires

Having ascertained that both the experience and control groups were acquainted with various categories of SEN, I examined the scoring on the affective component. This measured how much the mainstream pupils were looking forward to working with the pupils at the special school, whether they felt able to help them and whether they thought they would learn anything from the experience. I have presented the average scores for each question in the form of a graph.

Question 9 "I am looking forward to working with children from Netherset"

Graph 1 shows an increase for both groups at each data point. With no intervention, the control group mean score increased by 0.296 over baseline, and after watching the video, a further 0.445. The experience group registered an increase of 1.037 following the programme of interaction, and another 0.111 following the video. The difference between the lowest and highest scores across the three phases was 1.148.

At question 10 the control group scored 0.4 higher than the experience group at the baseline, and were only 0.2 behind them at data point B, and 0.4 above them at data point C. But overall, only 1.8 divided the six scores.

Graph 3: Average scores for question 11.

The average scores at question 11 show a drop of 0.037 for the control group at data point B and a rise of 0.111 at data point C, showing an increase overall. The experience group maintained the increase of 0.444 at data point B and data point C.

Connotative Component of the Questionnaires

Question 12: "If there were a boy or girl in my class who was blind or deaf, I would help them."

Graph 4 shows the experience group scoring higher than the control group across the three data points. The control group shows a gradual decline across the three phases, dropping 0.148 from Data Point A to Data Point C. The experience group scored slightly higher at Data Point A and after working at Netherset (where none of the children they met were blind or deaf) dropped 0.223 and remained there after the video. This signifies an instinctive desire to help a blind or deaf peer unsupported by their experience.

Question 13 shows the control group score dipping and rising again to 0.297 above their baseline score. By contrast, the experience group drop 0.519 across the three phases. An attempt to explain this is given below.

Both classes responded positively to the possibility of supporting someone with a sensory impairment, (question 12). Only two pupils from the control group gave negative responses, and all the experience group responded positively. Scores for question 13: run counter to all other scores from both classes at each data point. Did the children hold such positive views of a disabled child that they saw being wheelchair-bound as only a slight handicap in working alongside them in their usual style? Or, could their answer be seen as an indication of understandable ignorance of any possible problems, or a selfish attitude that would not bend to the needs of a class member who might have such different needs to theirs? Knowing the children as I do, I am persuaded that the answer lies in the first question, but to an impartial observer this might not be so obvious. By their negative responses, the children show more acceptance of a child in a wheelchair.

Overview of the affective and connotative components

Combining the average scores for all five questions shows an increase of 0.230 across the three phases for the control group. The experience group, however, increased by 0.244 after interaction, and dropped 0.029 after the video. I feel that an explanation for this could lie in question 13. The wording of this has proved to be problematic, in that it requires knowledge of the children in order to interpret the responses. However, the differences are small and this points to the need for triangulation.

QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS OF SENTENCE COMPLETIONS

Affective Component "I am going to work at Netherset so that…"

Table 6 Content Analysis of the affective component of the Sentence Completions from both groups at three data points.

The replies fall into three distinct groups that reflected the Wildwood pupils' perception of advantages to themselves; to Netherset pupils and joint benefits. Once again the control group's replies showed that they were eager to help the special school pupils, with the next highest percentage of children looking forward to making friends and nearly as many hoping to "learn more about them". Nearly twice as many children from the experience group wanted to join in sporting activities than anything else mentioned.

Connotative Component "When I am at Netherset I would like to…"

Table 7: Content Analysis of the connotative component of Sentence Completions from both groups at the three data points.

Given the opportunity to put forward their individual suggestions for what they could do at Netherset, once again the control group's focus was on helping the pupils, whereas more of the experience group were specific in their desires to take part in practical activities such as art, cooking and computers. How easy it would be to misinterpret these figures. My subjective view of these qualitative data inevitably draws on my knowledge of the children, and the influence on them of their teachers' positive attitudes. They do however, raise interesting questions which are open to a number of interpretations. It is worth drawing attention to the curiosity expressed by eleven members of the control group at the first data point and only one of the experience group. Neither group repeated this at the subsequent data points. Also, with no intervention, eleven more of the control group want to understand and learn more about the pupils at Netherset at data point B than at data point A, followed by a drop of seven at data point C. But more of the experience group expressed interest in practical activities both inside and outside the classroom than in the more esoteric understanding of any problems Netherset children might have. Only after watching "Educating Peter" do three children from this group want to know more about the handicapped children they have already met, worked and played with.

CIRCLE TIME

Most of the Sentence Completion scripts were similar with little variation in ideas or attitudes across the period of the investigation. The overall impression at the first data point is of both groups expressing a sense of curiosity and a certain degree of altruism. The videoed circle time of control and experience groups shows clear evidence of a serious approach and mature views. They are sympathetic to any possible lack of ability. The boys want to play football, but when R suggests Wildwood fields Y3 and Y4 teams, "so that it is more fair", J wants "… mixed teams and not Netherset against Wildwood. They might get worried about scoring." The same boy suggests a school trip to the zoo or a leisure park, "… because you make more friends if you have fun." This astute observation is followed up by another boy, D, "…. having fun you are more natural." Later it is he who points out that we shouldn't go anywhere, "… if some people couldn't go on lots of things, so it wouldn't be fair… when you're out you forget the disability and just make friends." Much of the discussion centred on the need to work together on activities that would not disadvantage special school children. Their ideas involved various art projects including pottery, poetry workshop, drama ("… but could they learn their lines?") and "two people making a sculpture", as well as sport, games and swimming. Another idea was that, "… it would be best to go to a film, then everyone is the same." But they ended with the thought that, "They should decide what we do because we might not be very accurate and know what they would like to do." The experience group circle time at data point B following combined activities shared between the two schools, showed some honest reflection. Comments included:

Just the last comment could be used as justification for introducing mainstream pupils to those in special schools. The media has a responsibility to be honest in its reporting and portrayal of issues related to disability and handicap. And like the PHU - there is a mystique which surrounds something called 'special' and remains out of sight.

At data point C after watching the video, "Educating Peter" their discussion showed sympathy for both Peter and his classmates. Several picked up the point that it was a learning experience for all of them, and their teacher pointed out that Peter's teacher was honest in sharing her worries and fears at the beginning.

I took advantage of the opportunity which the research design presented to have a positive influence on those involved in the research process. I believe that staff and pupils from both schools gained from their time together and have a better appreciation of what the benefits of integration for all pupils could be. Some activities have been more obviously beneficial than others.

We continued and broadened the programme of interaction. The control group was eager to take part in combined activities with the special school as soon as I had collected my data. There were regular meetings between the staff of both schools to evaluate and plan successive programmes. The subsequent activities expanded to include children from six mainstream classes and three classes from the special school. There is a sharing of responsibility and expertise, and the activities are evenly spread between both schools. Activities included:

As well as investigating the children's attitudes, I was keen to find out the views of some of the adults who influenced them. For this I had the co-operation of the heads of both schools, four class teachers, a supply teacher, a student on final teaching practice, support staff from both schools and three parents of mainstream children. The heads agreed that closer links between the two schools would benefit both staff and pupils.

I have been very encouraged by the interest shown by the special school headteacher and chair of governors. Nationally, there have been, understandably, some reservations expressed by those in special schools as they approach the possibility of losing a proportion of their pupils to a system that has in some cases previously failed them. My small sample showed a resistance to the complete integration of pupils with profound, severe or even moderate learning difficulties, but an incremental process of ever closer working practices is accepted as "a good thing".

The successive programmes developed over five terms grew out of the strong commitment from all the staff involved. My research design provided the original impetus for action and I continued to act as co-ordinator. I feel strongly that the best prospect of long-term success lies in the locus of control remaining with the class teachers, who share the responsibility and the workload. As more classes become involved, their teachers join the planning meetings and are encouraged to contribute their ideas.

CONCLUSION

If my argument for developing positive attitudes to SEN as a pre-requisite for integration and inclusion is accepted, I hope that the work I have done, demonstrates one way of working towards achieving it. Setting up a range of activities between my school and the special school with a view to building stronger and closer relationships, has hinged on the close proximity of the two schools and the goodwill of all those involved. For others to gain from our experience will depend to a great extent on their local circumstances, the personnel involved and the commitment of whoever leads the programme. My experience has shown that with high levels of personal motivation, time and energy can be found to ensure that once begun, the momentum is continued.

In heightening awareness and enhancing positive attitudes to fellow pupils with SEN, I feel I have helped to lay the foundations for those involved to accept and include a more diverse range of peers into their social circle. To ascertain whether these changes have any lasting effect, I am continuing to track the attitudes of both the control and experience groups through their secondary education.

The process described here supported increased participation of both groups in each other's schools. The programme of interaction had significant effects on the reported attitudes of the mainstream pupils. The processes described are "integrative" rather than "inclusive", ie positive attitude change does not represent a sense of belonging within a full time "inclusive" environment. The purpose of the study was to investigate methods of supporting attitude change within existing frameworks of special and ordinary education. The methods presented are effective, but the wider implications of the study would need both schools to fundamentally reappraise their aims and purposes to enable the accommodation and assimilation of children with SLD into ordinary environments which could then be described as truly inclusive.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Campbell, D.T., Stanley, J.C. (1966) Experimental and Quasi-experimental Design for Research. Chicago, Rand Mc Nally & Co.

Cohen, L., Mannion, L. (1989) Research Methods in Education. London. Routledge

DfEE (1997) Excellence for all Children: Meeting Special Educational Needs. (Green Paper). London HMSO.

Fitz-Gibbon, C.T., Morris, A.L. (1987) How to Analyse Data California, Sage.

Lewis, A. (1995) Children's Understanding of Disability London. Routledge.

Vulliamy, G., Webb, R. (1993) Teacher Research and Special Educational Needs London. Fulton.

Wade, B., Moore, M., (1993) Experiencing Special Education Milton Keynes Open University Press.

Video, (undated) Educating Peter Learning resources inc. Virginia, Blackbourne

Index