Balancing the Priorities of the Classroom Teacher With the Imperatives of

High Stakes Assessment of Reading: An English Perspective

COLIN HARRISON University of Nottingham

ABSTRACT: The question underpinning this paper, and the international symposium on reading assessment at the University of Nottingham which preceded it, is this: "In what ways can we learn from each other how to improve reading assessment, at the personal, classroom, local and national levels?" This paper will attempt to answer the question "How can we learn from each other?" in the following ways: fn'st some background information on the New Paradigms in Reading Assessment (NPRA) seminar ~A1 be presented; second, an account will be offered about what has been happening in lmaguage arts assessment (the subject termed 'English') in the United Kingdom, which goes some way to explaining why in England there has been a particularly urgent need to learn from the experiences of other countries; third, some examples will be given of new approaches to assessment in other countries, particularly the United States, Australia, and Scotland (which has the same government, but a different education system from that in England and Wales) from which those of us in England might learn; fourth, some principles which might underpin new assessment approaches within the English system will be put forward; and finally, an indication will be given of how some of these principles are being put into practice in classrooms in England, as pilot work on an international eoUaborative study.

KEYWORDS: Assessment (reading, principles of), international comparisons, national policies, new assessment paradigms, political climate, government sponsored tests.

The New Paradigms m Reading Assessment Seminar The initial purpose for convening the New Paradigms in Reading Assessment (NPRA) seminar group, which met in Nottingham, England in September 1994 and June 1995, was a concern among reading assessment specialists in England that the national assessment procedures for reading had been so ill-conceived and ineffectual that it was important to become better informed about alternative approaches, so that some worthwhile and cogent alternatives could be put forward when the political climate and the assessment climate changed. This goal led to the decision to seek

Interchange, VoL 27•3 & 4, 349-360, 1996. ©Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands.

350 COLIN HARRISON

information from colleagues in other countries about what they considered to be worthwhile new approaches to reading assessment. Funding was obtained from sponsors in the United Kingdom to enable colleagues from Australia, England, Malaysia, Northern Ireland, Norway, Scotland, Tonga, and the United States to attend two two-day seminars in Nottingham to exchange papers and perspectives on what was happening in each other's countries.

We did learn from each other. One important lesson we learned was that in all of our countries there has been in recent years an exceptional amount of political intervention in reading assessment at the national level. The next section of this paper recounts some of the effects of such interventions in England.

The Impact of National Policies on the Assessment of English m England In England, political intervention has led to some particularly unfortunate decisions, many of which have been related to a marginalization not only of classroom teachers from key decisions concerning the assessment process, but also to a wish to minimize the input from anyone with specialist knowledge of education in general and of the teaching of English in particular. Over the past eight years, there has been an enquiry led by a professor of physics to determine national policy on the teaching of the English language, and a committee made up primarily of authors, broadcasters, and literary critics to determine the national currictdum for English. Finally, a group of civil servants was given the responsibility for commissioning the national tests of reading, following strict guidelines determined at the ministerial level.

In 1992, the civil servants at the Schools Curriculum and Assessment Authority (SCA.A) gave the contract for devising the national tests in reading for all 14 year olds in the following year to the University of Cambridge Local Examinations Syndicate, a group with an international reputation for constructing tests for assessing adults' competence in English as a Second Language, but which is not known by teachers for its knowledge of schools, English teaching, and contemporary approaches to assessment in the English classroom.

The result of this was a disaster- or a triumph, depending on one's point of view. In 1993, teachers, concerned that a completely new national test was about to be administered to hundreds of thousands of children without adequate piloting, without teachers having been given an opportunity to prepare their students, and with a content which had a poor overlap with the curriculum it was intended to test, became politicized, Pressure groups were set up, school governing bodies and parents were persuaded that the tests were inadequate, and a boycott of the tests was called for which resulted in 98% of schools deciding to ignore the increasingly threatening tone of government instructions and to boycott the tests.

An evaluation of the 1993 tests has recently become available: It was written during August and September 1993 and presented to the government's testing agency at that time. In April 1994, the authors of the report CRuddock, Brooks, Harris, Salt,

BALANCING THE PRIORITIES OF THE CLASSROOM TEACHER 351

Putman & Schagen, 1995) completed revisions which were requested by the evaluation's sponsors. In June t995 the evaluation was officially published, but it was not until November 1995 that the fwst copies of the evaluation reached the public domain, 26 months after its authors presented their report. Not surprisingly, the report did not create a great stir: The government went on to change the tests in every subsequent year, and the report on the tests of 1993, which were taken by only 2% of those who were meant to take them, was of interest primarily to historians. For our purposes, however, it is appropriate to note some of the report's conclusions, which included the following:

• the adminislrative arrangements for the tests were judged to be unduly complex (teachers had to decide in advance on the likely level of students' achievement, before entering them for a test appropriate for their level);

• the evaluators judged that the tests did not measure what was specified in the National Curriculum, and this discrepancy was particularly great in the case of reading;

• most of the reading tasks were judged invalid;

• the marking schemes for reading were judged to be insufficiently clear to ensure adequate reliability.

This would be a fairly damning list of concerns for any test. The fact that this list is part of an evaluation of the government's own tests carried out by the National Foundation for Educational Research, and the fact that this evaluation did not lead to any public outcry, indicates the scale of the problem in England faced by those whose goal is to improve national assessment procedures.

Each year since 1992, new (and nationally improved) government-sponsored tests have been devised, and the government's testing agency has had to tread a free line between meeting the wishes of ministers for traditional pencil and paper comprehension tests, and responding to the challenge of teachers and testing experts who have pointed out that their new tests have poor construct validity, since (amongst other weaknesses) they do not test the government's new national curriculum, which stresses a range of reading skills and strategies applied to a range of texts, using a range oftask frameworks. It was in this context that the NPRA seminar group met, and attempted to clarify what could be learned from each other's countries about new and potentially more effective practices in assessment.

What can we Learn From Each Other?

The New Paradigns in Reading Assessment group worked to identify areas in which national assessment initiatives have developed approaches or expertise which might usefully be generalized to other countries. The list which follows presents in compressed form some of the answers to the question "How might we learn from each other?" which the seminar delegates identified:

352 COLIN HARRISON

What English Assessment Specialists can Learn From Their United States Colleagues?

• To keep the process of developing new curricula and assessment procedures student-centred, to keep a sense of humour, and to be patient and open minded (North Dakota Department of Public Instruction, 1994);

• To work tirelessly to establish effective representation of teachers' professional organizations at a national level (as the National Council for the Teaching of English - NCTE - and International Reading Association - IRA - have done);

• Extensive national expense in portfolio assessment (see Hansen, 1994);

• Extensive national expertise in authentic reading assessment (see Valencia, Hiebert, Attlerbach, 1994);

• Innovative contributions to assessment theory (see Johnson, 1994; Tierney, 1994; Alvermann & Commeyras, in press);

• Informed critique of assessment approaches in England (Freedman, 1994);

• Innovative individual projects whose results may be used to extend and deepen our approaches to assessment (see Taylor, 1994, on a student advocacy model of instructional assessment; Almasi, 1995, on how much may be learned from peer-ted discussions; Hartman, 1995, on eight readers' intertextual linking when reading multiple passages).

What English Assessment Specialists can Learn From Countries Other Than the United States?

• From Australia - integrated national policies which value contributions from professional literacy bodies (see Brock, in press);

• From Austral ia- an export boom in integrated assessment packages (see Education Department of Western Australia, 1994; Griffin, n.d.);

• From Australia - assessment procedures which give the teacher a crucial and substantial role, but which can also produce aggregated data for nonloeal purposes;

• From Scotland - Diagnostic Procedures (see Hayward and Spencer, in press); this approach emphasizes the teacher's crucial role in diagnosis and teaching for reading development, and the need for government initiatives to support the teacher in becoming more confident and more effective in this role.

g/hat Knowledge or Experience is There in England Which may be of Value to Colleagues in Other Countries?

• The Inner London Education Authority Primary Language record ~arrs, Ellis, Hester, Thomas, 1994), which has proved a useful model for assessment in the United States (Falk, in press);

• Teachers' experience of 30 years of moderation (calibration) of students' portfolios at high school level, using course work collected over 18 months (Hamlin, in press);

BALANCING THE PRIORITIES OF THE CLASSROOM TEACHER 353

High national regard for local educational authority initiatives; for example, the Surrey Reading Project, the Lewisham Reading Project, the Nottinghamshire projects Developing Children's Skills in Review, and Self Assessment and Target-Setting (Nottinghamshire County Council Advisory and Inspection Services Division, 1994) and the Recording Achievement in Nottinghamshire Primary Schools project (Nottinghamshire County Council Advisory and Inspection Services Division, 1995).

Each of the points above would merit detailed discussion, which is not possible within this paper, but what seems clear is that there is a great deal of potential in mutual exchanges of information on assessment across international boundaries.

The Principles of Responsive Assessment New tests of reading have usually been developed in order to bring about incremental improvements in test design, but the major rethinking in reading assessment which some of the more recent approaches have brought about has not been the result of incremental change. These system-level changes prompt the questions: "On what principles should new assessment approaches be developedT' "Are there any first principles upon which test developers should drawT' Harrison, Bailey and Dewar (in press) offer a rationale based on a postmodern perspective, which leads to six principles which they suggest could underpin what they term 'responsive assessment' in reading. The six principles are as follows.

First, in responsive assessment, the emphasis is switched to the classroom. Assessment is often a national project, and national initiatives may be driven by political imperatives rather than by theories of teaching or learning. One key insight of the postmodem perspective is that large-scale global solutions to problems are no longer necessarily regarded as valid, and that smaller-scale local solutions may come to be regarded as more useful. When applied in the field of reading assessment, it is argued that this should lead to our focussing attention on the classroom as the site for exploration and analysis, rather than the school or school system. This change of emphasis away from the school or the nation as the unit of assessment turns the spotlight towards curriculum practices, and the place of assessment within teaching and learning. At this point assessment can begin to serve two essential purposes which national programmes usually ignore: Such evidence can be of direct value to the teacher, and it can also be of direct value to the student.

Second, responsive assessment implies an increased emphasis on teacher assessment, self assessment, and peer assessment. Postmodern accounts of scientific enquiry are very skeptical towards claims of objectivity in science, and argue that it is important to accept that subjectivity permeates all human enquiry, including science. A postmodern perspective, therefore, seeks to acknowledge the importance of the individual subject. This in turn puts a fresh emphasis on the importance of the teacher and the learner as subjects rather than objects within the assessment process. There is a danger that the teacher can be deskilled by assessment practices which

354 COLIN HARRISON

view the teacher simply as a technician who administers tests, and whose subjectivity is perceived as a threat to the validity of the assessment process. Instead, a responsive assessment perspective would support the view advanced by the Scottish researchers Louise Hayward and Ernie Spencer (in press), that teachers are crucial contributors to assessment, but they need inservice time and support to become more skilled and confident in this complex field. Equally, we would want to suggest that students should be helped to become confident and skilled in self- and peer-assessment processes.

Third, responsive assessment of reading should not only draw upon a range of methodologies, but should also be negotiated with the participants. Postmodern theories of scientific enquiry have recognized that it is currently no longer possible to describe the world of science with a single theory. For example, the traditional laws of motion in physics, which generations of scientists have learned since the days of Newton, are still valid and useful in many contexts, but at the sub-atomic level they no longer apply. Within the world of science, different theories and discourses have to be used under different circumstances. Similar challenges have faced those working in research in the social sciences, as traditional research approaches have been challenged, and ethnographers and others have developed new techniques for carrying out research. We would want to advar~e a similar argument in the field of reading, and to suggest that in reading assessment it is important to consider a range of methodologies, and to match these to the needs of different audiences and contexts. In our view, to do this in a manner which recognizes the importance of the individual subject would involve not only using a range of methodologies and approaches, but also negotiating these with the participants. We would want to suggest that students should be involved in deciding what evidence of their response to reading is to be recorded, and that range of evidence should be broadened to admit a wide range of material, including, for example, play scripts, logs, scrapbooks, narratives, maps, graphs, taped conversations, photographs, role-playing, interviews, and displays.

Fourth, it is important to increase the authenticity of the tasks which form the basis of reading assessment. Postmodem perspectives within literary theory have been very influential in introducing a mistrust of authoritarian notions of meaning in text, and in placing a new interpretation on the role of the reader in determining a text's meaning. Such a perspective would lead us to challenge some traditional approaches of assessing response to reading, for example through the use of traditional reading comprehension tests. One aspect of rethinking traditional approaches to reading assessment, therefore, has been to put greater emphasis on considering readers' responses to authentic reading tasks, and to setting these tasks in more naturalistic contexts.

Fifth, it is important to take greater account of a reader's response. Just as it is important to increase the authenticity of tasks, so it is essential to attempt to capture the authenticity of response to reading which takes place within a task, and to obtain evidence of the transactions which form the reader's response. In looking for ways to

BALANCING THE PRIORITIES OF THE CLASSROOM TEACHER 355

take account of this perspective in reading assessment, one important suggestion is that tape-recorded data, including interviews, can offer a basis for exploration which is potentially very fruitful. There are a number of reasons for this. Tape recordings can be especially useful for retaining a variety of types of information on reader response: interviews can be open-ended and dynamic; taped data can be stored, retained and played back at a later time for comparison and discussion; tape recording offers the potential for a teacherless context for collecting evidence, over which a student or group of students can have some authority and sense of ownership.

Sixth, responsive assessment of reading should acknowledge a diminution of the authority of the author and of the text. As Terry Eagleton has pointed out (1983, p. 74) literary theorists have shifted their attention away from the author (the focus of the 19th century critics) and the text (the focus of structuralist critics earlier in the 20th century) and towards the reader, who has hitherto been the most underprivileged of the three. Current theories place the reader at the centre of meaning-making, and view readers as active collaborators in a dynamic process in which predictions, assumptions, and inferences are made, challenged, and rejected, as the readers gain new insights not only into texts, but also into themselves. In our view, tasks which involve the reader in active reflection on texts, with the active hypothesis formation, dialogue, and engagement which are possible in small group work, offer great potential for achieving this final goal, which places the reader in a central and powerful position as an active and purposeful user of texts and creator of meaning.

Implementing Responsive Assessment: Pilot Projects in Nottinghamshire This section will give an account of pilot work implementing responsive assessment of reading in four schools in Nottinghamshire, England. Each school is using tape recording as a central means of data collection, with three complementary focuses: self assessment, peer assessment, and teacher assessment.

In School A, an inner-city junior school, attention in the pilot project has focussed on the following key issues: the ownership of reading assessment data, the problems of handling the technology, the importance of modeling responses to reading, and the issue of long-term evaluation. In addressing these issues, the school has given all students in the pilot classes (most of whom were 10 years old at the beginning of the school year) their own tape, for which they have responsibility, and which will remain their property when they leave the school, if they so wish. Problems of handling the technology of the tape recorder are not easy for 10-year-olds, and these together with problems of managing the housekeeping of tape recorded data, are being addressed through weekly whole-class discussion. The teachers are working to develop the students' skills in listening to each other, since such skills are an essential prerequisite for peer assessment. These skills are modeled through whole-class discussion of brief presentations made to their classmates by each student on a character from their favourite TV soap opera. This whole-class activity seems to be a very useful one for modeling discussion activities which can be

356 COLIN HARRISON

later generalized to comments on stories and characters from books which the students have read, and which might form part of a tape-recorded evaluation of a book made in an individual or small-group context. Finally, in seeking to retain evidence of their long-term development as a reader, many of the students are keen to simply record themselves reading aloud. It seems likely, therefore that the recordings will provide direct evidence of individuals' reading fluency as well as information on their response to reading.

In the secondary schools, a somewhat different but related set of key issues has emerged from the pilot work on responsive assessment of reading. In School B, an inner-city secondary school, the key issues have been: small-group discussions, group self-assessment leading to individual self-evaluation, and paired peer assessment. Initially, the teachers have focussed on using tape recording with under-achieving readers, and are finding that these students are keen to keep a record of their reading, in order to be able to note changes as their achievement improves. In School C, a community school in a depressed semi-rural former mining area, the Head of the English Department is particularly interested in the place of reading within the writing process, and has introduced the taping of paired and small-group discussions of how students use their reading to improve their writing. A further issue which has surfaced, and which is a very important one for teachers is that of avoiding an 'inconveniently rich' data set. This issue leads again to a consideration of the concept of ownership: if it is the student who has ownership of the tape, then the teacher's role is not that of critic, who has to review every tape, but that of facilitator, whose role is to ensure that the student makes the best use of the data on reading which is recorded. In School D, a suburban denominational secondary school, two key issues which have emerged have been those of relating responsive assessment procedures to younger students' use of Reading Logs, and to older students' responses to Shakespeare. Teachers have encouraged younger students to include taped serf-evaluation and discussion as part of their response to the reading of fiction. The work on taping responses to Shakespeare has been with 16-year-olds; the students have been making small-group tape-recordings of their initial responses to Hamlet, so that they could review these after more detailed study of the play, and come to a clearer understanding not only of the text, but of how their reading and understanding developed.

As these brief accounts make clear, the pilot projects are at present directing more attention to individual and peer assessment than to teacher assessment. This is understandable, since it is in such areas that the teachers are seeking to explore the potential of the tape recorder as a tool in responsive assessment. But clearly, while recognizing the danger of generating an 'inconveniently rich' data set, the teachers are aware that the approaches which the students are using have a great deal of potential for providing teachers with an alternative source of information from that which traditional reading assessment procedures would offer. The teachers in these pilot schools aim to extend their work over the coming year, and are looking forward

BALANCING THE PRIORITIES OF THE CLASSROOM TEACHER 357

to participating in a related project which will give them the opportunity to share the information on what is happening in their schools with teachers in a school district in Michigan, using a specially-established electronic mail messaging system which will operate over the Internet.

Conclusions

The approach to the responsive assessment of reading which has been sketched in this paper appears to place a good deal of faith in data obtained using a tape recorder. There are, of course, many reasons for being cautious about such an approach. Those involved in the pilot projects are aware that the discourse collected in classrooms and recorded on tape is situated in a social context, and is problematic for that reason.

Some of the problems with this approach to collecting data are as follows:

(1) Tape recordings in school produce situated discourse:

• students may say what they think the teacher wishes to hear;

• students may simply repeat curriculum goal outlines which they have been taught;

• not every student interviews well (for reasons ranging from shyness to subversion);

• there may be a poor match between actual reading behaviours and taped discourse;

• teachers (or others) may guide the discourse inappropriately.

(2) Making recordings in school is not a simple matter:

• training, discussion, and practice are necessary;

• housekeeping rules are necessary;

• young students may have difficulties with the technology of the tape recorder;

• valuable data may be unintentionally erased or lost;

• older students may erase tape sections they feel uncomfortable with.

(3) Questions of ownership and the use made of data are not simple:

• who really does own the tapes?

• what role does negotiation play?

• how does the student identify next steps?

• how should the teacher support the students' next steps?

Even if all the above problems are addressed, there remains the crucial issue of how the evidence gathered using classroom-based responsive assessment approaches connects up with the imperatives of high stakes assessment. Perhaps the most appropriate approach to take is to accept that the argument advanced by Sarah Freedman (1994) is correct, namely that there is a fundamental incompatibility between developmental assessment and high stakes assessment. However, while the

358 COLIN HARRISON

high stakes a s ~ e n t initiatives associated with the National Curriculum in England have been a cause for great concern, the National Curriculum itself has been generally accepted as offering a fairly reasonable basis for setting developmental assessment targets. What one would want to suggest, therefore, is that the pilot projects reported in this paper are not doomed simply because they are occurring within a larger coercive framework. On a postmodern analysis, discourse systems can work in parallel, and can be useful in different ways for different reference groups. The project of combining all narratives into a single metanarrative is doomed (Lyotard, 1984), but this does not mean that there is not space for alternative narratives which can operate in parallel with others.

Responsive assessment of reading can proceed on a small-scale basis very successfully: it can contribute to the attempt to shift the project of assessment from a global to a local level, and if there are difficulties in generalizing from data gathered at the local level, one must accept that such di~iculties are unavoidable, The issue is not so much that it may be invalid to make generalized statements based on responsive assessment data, but rather that we need to accept that in attempting to make such statements we are rethinking the concept of generalizability. This is a tall order, however, since to rethink the concept of generalizability is to embark on a rethinking of the whole concept of validity in reading assessment. On a postmodem analysis, such a reconceptualization is long overdue.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The author gratefully aelmowledges the generous support of two United Kingdom organizations, the National Literacy Trust and the Economic and Social Research Council, which enabled the NPRA seminar group to meet at the University of Nottingham, in September 1994 and June 1995.

REFERENCES

Almasi, J.F. (1995). The nature of fourth graders' sociocultural conflicts in peer-led and teacher-led discussions of literature. Reading Research Quarterly, 3@(3), 314-351.

Alv~aann, D. & C~maeyras, M. (in press), Reading assessment: Feminist persa3eetives on gender. In C. Harrison & T. Salinger (Eds.), International perspectives on reading assessment: Theory and practice.

Barfs, M., Ellis, S., Hester, H., & Thomas, A. (1994). The primary language record. London: ILEA Centre for Language in Primary Education.

Brock, P. (in press). Some Auslmlian perspectives on language and literacy assessment. In C. Harrison & T. Salinger (Eds.), International perspectives on reading assessment: Theory and praetiee. London: Routledge.

BALANCING THE PRIORITIES OF THE CLASSROOM TEACHER 359

Eagleton, T. (1983). Literary theory. Oxford: Basil Black-well. E d ~ o n Department of Western Australia. (1994). First steps. Melbourne, Australia:

Longman. Falk, B. (in press). Using direct evidence to assess student progress. In C. Harrison &

T. Salinger (Eds.), International perspectives on reading assessment: Theory and practice.

Freedman, S.W. (1994). High stakes exams. Educator, 8(2), Fall, 12-17. P. (n.d.). Developing literacy profiles. Coburg, Australia: Assessment Research

Centre, Philip Institute of Technology. Hamlin, M. (in press). Assessing the reading of students aged 14-16: A dual perspective.

In R. Jenkins & IV[ Coles (F_xis.), Internationalperspectives on reading assessment: Changing practice in classrooms.

Hansen, L (1994). Literacy portfolios: Window on potential. In S.W. Valencia, E.H. Hiebert, & P.P. Afflerbach (Eds.), Authentic reading assessment: Practices and possibilities (pp. 26-40). Newark DE: International Reading Association.

Harrison, C., Barley, M.C., & Dewar, A. (in press). Responsive reading assessment: is 'postmodem' assessment of reading possible? In C. Harrison & T. Salinger ~ds.), International perspectives on reading assessment: Theory and practice.

Hartmar~ D. K. (1995). Eight readers reading: The intertextual links of proficient readers reading multiple passages. Reading Research Quarterly, 30(3), 520-561.

Hayward, L.& Spencer, E. (in press). Diagnostic procedures in reading: Taking a closer look - A Scottish perspective on an intemational issue. In C. Harrison & T. Salinger ~ds.), International perspectives on reading assessment: Theory and practice.

Johnson, P. (1994). Assessment as social practice. In D.J. Len & C.K. Kinzer (Eds.) Examining critical issues in literacy research: Theory and practice (pp. 11-23). Chicago IL: National Reading Conference.

Lyotard, J.-F. (1984). The pos~nodgm condition: A Report on knowledge (G. Bennington & B. Massumi, Trans). Manchester: Manchester Utfiversity Press.

Nottinghamshire County Council Advisory and Inspection Services Division. (1994). Developing children's skills in review, self assessment and target-setting. Nottingham, UK: Nottinghamshire County Council.

Nottinghamshire County Council Advisory and Inspection Services Division. (1995). Recording achievement in Nottinghamshire primary schools. Nottingham, UK: Educational Publications Group, Resources Division, Nottinghamshire County Council.

North Dakota ~ t of Public Instnmtiorr (1994). North Dakota English language arts curriculum frameworks: Standards and benchmarks. Bismarck, ND: North Dakota Department of Public Instruction.

Ruddoek, G., Brooks, G., Harris, D., Salt, S., Putman, K., & Sehagen, I. (1995). Evaluation of national curriculum assessment in English and technology at key stage 3: 1993. Slough, Berkshire: National Foundation for Educational Research.

Taylor, D. (1994). From the child's point of view: Assessing the complexity of student learning. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Tierney, R.J. (1994). Dissention, tensions, and the models of literacy. Theoretical Models and Processes of Reading (4th ed.). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

360 COLIN HARRISON

Valencia, S.W., Hiebert, E.H., & Afflerbaeh, P,P. (Eds.). (1994). Authentic reading assessment: Practices and possibilities. Newark DE: International Reading Association.

Author's Address:

University of Nottingham School of Education University Park Nottingham NG7 2RD ENGLAND