| |
|
|
| Key
Lessons |
| |
|
|
| The lessons
from experience may of course be of different levels and degrees
of magnitude. Some lessons are fundamental and have broad application,
while others may apply to the mechanics of different circumstances.
Here, the main stress is on the key lessons for the broad picture. |
| |
|
| Fundamental
Approaches |
| |
|
|
At the
most fundamental level, two lessons deserve emphasis above
all others:
A. Partnerships
are important. Experience before and since the 1990 Jomtien
conference clearly shows the value of partnerships in the
goal of education for all. Governments cannot do everything
by themselves; and communities cannot do everything by themselves.
When they join forces, the chances of success are much enhanced.
B. Each
situation is different. Despite the general lesson that partnerships
are important, each setting requires individual tailoring.
What works in one situation may not work in another; and what
works at one point in time may not work so well subsequently.
This requires great flexibility. Approaches based on the perspective
that "one size fits all" are unlikely to be successful and
sustained.
|
| |
|
| These points
might seem obvious. However, they are sometimes overlooked,
and deserve emphasis because they provide part of an overall
framework for policy. |
| |
|
| General
Principles |
| |
|
| 1. Partnerships
need trust. This trust must be on both sides: governments must
trust communities, and communities must trust governments. This
is not to imply that each side should not seek guarantees and
build in safeguards. Indeed such guarantees and safeguards would
seem in most circumstances to be both sensible and desirable.
Nevertheless, the words of President Abdou Diouf of Senegal,
expressed in the context of international partnerships, could
equally refer to government and community partnerships. As observed
by President Diouf (1999, p.34), trust is built on: |
| |
|
mutual
recognition of each partner's institutional and self-interests,
expectations, problems … and cultures. It is maintained
through common experience, permanent communication, and
proximity, which facilitate mutual understanding.
|
| The reality
in many countries is that governments and communities do not
trust each other. Governments may feel threatened by well-organized
communities, and contemptuous of poorly-organized ones. Communities
may feel skeptical of government promises that old bureaucratic
norms have changed, and intimidated by imbalances in access
to expertise and other resources. In such a situation, the partners
will be unwilling to help each other to meet institutional and
other goals. Positive effort is needed on both sides. |
| |
|
| 2. Partnerships
need long-term commitment. One encouraging sign is that advocacy
of partnerships, like advocacy of decentralization, has been
a consistent, sustained and growing theme for over a decade.
In many (though not all) countries, such advocacy has survived
abrupt changes of government and economic climate. Partnerships
cannot be built up overnight, not least because trust is an
essential ingredient. As in other relationships, efforts to
collaborate commonly bring disappointments as well as success.
Only with long-term commitment can partnerships be sustained
in the face of short-term set-backs. |
| |
|
| 3. Partnerships
need clear and mutually accepted roles. Government and community
partnerships do not need equal roles to be played by both sides.
Indeed in most settings that would be impossible: governments
can command huge financial, human and other resources, while
communities can only be minor players with limited resources.
However, the major and minor players can still operate well
together if participants are clear about their roles and are
respectful of each other. The precise nature of roles will of
course vary in different settings. For example, in one setting
government might pay all teachers' salaries, while in another
setting the community will pay salaries. Likewise, in one setting
all buildings and land might be provided by government, while
in another they will be provided by the community. The most
important ingredients are that in each particular setting all
sides are clear about their roles, and that the partners have
mutual acceptance of the roles of others. |
| |
|
| 4. Partners
must focus on both big and small pictures. Governments are more
likely than local communities to have a big picture of the patterns
and directions of development. National governments of course
have broader remits than regional governments, which in turn
have broader remits than local governments. But communities,
almost by definition, are likely to have narrower visions which
focus on their own localities or religious, ethnic or other
groups. Harmony on the one hand requires governments to understand
the smaller pictures on which communities mainly focus, and
on the other hand requires communities to understand the bigger
pictures on which governments mainly focus. |
| |
|
| 5. Partnerships
need nurturing. Skills do not develop overnight, and attitudes
may take even longer to adjust. This commonly requires deliberate
efforts by the actors concerned. Partnerships do not usually
happen by themselves. Sometimes they are precipitated by crisis;
but in those cases the bonds usually dissolve when calmer times
return. Sustained partnership, like other relationships, requires
the actors to take positive measures to promote the goal. Governments
may need to provide training and employ other measures to enhance
community capacity. At the same time, governments must listen
to the expressed needs of communities. As noted in Box 3 above,
such listening requires recognition of the diversity of cultures,
languages, customs and resources. It also requires recognition
that education begins in the home and within the community,
and must be nurtured there. |
| |
|
| 6. Partnerships
are relationships between individuals as well as institutions.
Ministries, NGOs and community bodies are institutions. However,
they are all composed of, and run by, individuals. As observed
by Sack (1999, p.12): |
|
At the
end of the day, the nature and quality of the relationships
between institutions, ministries and agencies will depend
on how individuals get along and work together. It will
also depend on how those individuals manage within their
respective institutional constraints (deadlines, procedures,
reward structures, priorities, etc.) and how they communicate
their constraints to their partners working in other institutions.
|
|
| One problem
is that although institutions are durable and evolve slowly,
individuals within those institutions may change jobs frequently.
This makes the exercise of partnership more difficult. Frequent
turnover of personnel can create frustration and fatigue, and
militates against awareness of past decisions, strategies, accomplishments
and lessons. Institutions need to be mindful of this problem,
and seek ways to tackle it through good record-keeping and careful
briefing of new personnel. |
| |
|
| 7. Genuine
partnerships involve much more than mere contribution of finance.
Some governments are chiefly interested in partnerships as a
mechanism to secure resources and to reduce budgetary crises.
In too many settings, so-called partnership simply becomes an
alternative to taxation. Communities are expected to provide
cash, labor and/or materials with little voice in the ways that
these resources will be used. In a few settings the opposite
pattern is found: governments disburse money to communities
and then expect this disbursement to lead to feelings of cooperation.
Neither approach can be called genuine partnership. Focus only
on finance fails to secure the much deeper benefits that can
be gained from shared decision-making on the substance of education. |
| |
|
| The
Significance of Broad Historical Legacies |
| |
|
| This study
has repeatedly stressed that the nature of strategies must vary
according to circumstances. This includes broad historical legacies
as well as more immediate economic, political and other circumstances.
In some settings the soil for the development of partnerships
is more fertile than in others. For example, many African and
Asian societies have long traditions of community organization
and self-help for social and economic purposes (King 1976; Abreu
1982; Biak Cin & Scandlen 1988; Haq & Haq 1998). These traditions
can be built on, revitalized and reshaped to fit continuing
and new demands in the goal of education for all. Other societies,
including for example those with Soviet legacies, have weaker
traditions of community self-help. This may partly be because
of differing cultural factors, and partly because of a long
history of centralized government provision of practically all
social services. |
| |
|
| Elaborating
on this point, it is useful to compare cultures in such countries
as Russia and Mongolia with those in the People's Republic of
China (PRC) and the Lao People's Democratic Republic (Lao PDR).
In Russia and Mongolia, traditions of community self-help remain
weak because of social and political factors. Following the
triumph of communism in the 1917 Bolshevik Revolution, the Russian
authorities stressed that the state had sole responsibility
and duty to provide education for its citizens. Mongolia became
the world's second communist state in 1924, and for the next
six and a half decades was heavily influenced by models in Russia
and other parts of the Soviet Union. In addition, the fact that
a large proportion of the Mongolian population was (and is)
both scattered and nomadic further militated against formation
of close bonds between communities and schools. The early 1990s
brought collapse of communism, and both Russia and Mongolia
officially became capitalist states. However, the combination
of social factors and the long legacy of communism meant that
community partnership was an alien concept which could not easily
be fostered. |
| |
|
| The PRC
and Lao PDR provide instructive contrasts. Communism in those
two countries survived the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991.
However, both countries moved to market economies; and the governments
of both countries found it much easier in the 1990s to promote
partnerships with communities. To some extent this was because
communist government was a much more recent innovation than
in Russia and Mongolia: in the PRC it dated from 1949, and in
Lao PDR it dated from 1975. Other factors were that cultures
were more strongly oriented towards community organization and
self-help, and the communist governments of the PRC and Lao
PDR had not espoused such extreme versions of state dominance
in education as had their counterparts in Russia and Mongolia
(Robinson 1988; Asian Development Bank 1993). Among the results
has been that during the 1990s significant forms of government-community
partnership could be developed with relative ease in both the
PRC and the Lao PDR, even though the states remained officially
socialist. |
| |
|
| Nevertheless,
even in countries of the former Soviet Union which had little
tradition of community activity, the 1990s brought some important
new initiatives. In Russia, this included advocacy of 'state-societal'
schools in which the state provided no more than 49 per cent
of the capital and in which other bodies, including communities
or other non-governmental groups, provided the remainder (Borevskaya
1999). The balance in provision of funds was matched by a balance
in the exercise of control. Likewise, communities in Azerbaijan
and Albania realized that the government was no longer in a
position to provide much support, and moved to self-help in
an effort to retain at least some of the previous high standards
of education (UNICEF 1998a, p.80). In such settings economic
crisis has softened attitudes on both sides: governments have
become more interested in the idea that communities can help
share financial burdens, and communities have become more willing
to contribute resources in order to maintain infrastructure
for their children. What has started with rather narrowly-focused
financial dimensions has in many cases broadened to other dimensions
including planning and curriculum. |
| |
|
| Decentralizing
shifts have also been evident in many other parts of the world
(Cummings & Riddell 1994; Lauglo 1995; Fiske 1996). Some of
these shifts have simply been from higher to lower levels of
government, and not all have involved partnerships with communities.
Nevertheless, this study has demonstrated that a significant
number of decentralizing shifts did involve such a partnership. |
| |
|
|
Once again,
however, official policies have not always matched actual
practice. In this connection, Gershberg (1999a, 1999b) has
instructively contrasted patterns in Mexico and Nicaragua:
In Mexico,
two reforms in the period 1978 to 1997 were officially described
as decentralization. The first, between 1978 and 1992, involved
the deconcentration of the federal government's ministry of
education by establishing Federal Delegations in each state.
The second, launched in 1992, officially transferred responsibility
for direct service provision from the federal government to
the states. Each school was required to form a Social Participation
Council; and each municipality was expected to have a Municipal
Education Council.
In Nicaragua,
decentralization was a feature of the 1990s. During the period
1979 to 1990, Nicaragua was governed by the revolutionary
Sandinista regime. Major changes were achieved in education,
which included a far-reaching literacy campaign (Arnove 1994).
These achievements, however, emanated from a highly centralized
regime. In 1990, decentralization became a goal of the new,
counter-revolutionary government. One part of this highly
politicized movement was an Autonomous Schools Program which
required establishment of school councils comparable to their
counterparts in Mexico (Rivarola & Fuller 1999).
|
| |
|
| The contrasts
in the actual operation of these reforms is striking. Gershberg
(1999b, p.758) criticized the Mexican reform, and bluntly described
the attempt to operate Social Participation Councils as a failure.
One reason, he suggested, was that Mexico had little history
of grassroots mobilization. Indeed, rather to the contrary,
it had a long history of tight, centralized, single-party, state
control. Further, the reform legislation gave the Social Participation
Councils only advisory power over school personnel, budgets
and curricula. The Nicaraguan councils, by contrast, took hold
because the central government had stronger political will.
Parents had a majority voting block on the councils, and they
were granted significant powers in resource allocation and personnel
management. Both were top-down initiatives; but the Nicaraguan
example shows that major changes can be achieved even under
such circumstances. Ironically, the legal basis for the change
was much clearer in Mexico than in Nicaragua. But this shows
that laws by themselves are inadequate tools for effecting change,
and that political motivation is a more important ingredient. |
| |
|
| In a very
different context, lessons may also be learned from the radical
reform of New Zealand's education system. Reform commenced in
1988 with a report entitled Administering for Excellence (Picot
1988). Part of the background lay in an electoral setback to
the government in 1987, when 'problems in education' were found
to have been a major determinant of voting patterns (Ramsay
1993, p.262). A major plank of the reforms was transfer of responsibility
for running schools from the government's Education Department
to teachers and trustees. This placed administration of schools
in the hands of local people, and ensured decision-making at
that level rather than in a distant bureaucracy. |
| |
|
| Ferguson
(1998, p.8) observed that the reform created "deep shock" for
many who had devoted their lives to building the education system
up to that point. The size and powers of the central administration
were drastically reduced, and schools were forced to respond
to market forces and community needs from which they had hitherto
been distanced. The reform was very controversial; but Ferguson
(p.47) asserted that nobody within the current education system
in New Zealand would want to revert to the way things used to
be. She added that: |
| |
|
| There is
a much stronger notion of partnership between boards of trustees
and staff. With the occasional dramatic exception, most would
claim improved relationship and communication between parents
and teachers leading to enhanced learning. |
| |
|
| The New
Zealand context is of course very different from the majority
of settings with which the Education for All movement is concerned.
New Zealand already had a well-educated populace and strong
'human capital' which could be mobilized. However, the reform
has instructive parallels with that in Nicaragua as a broadly
successful, top-down, "root and branch" initiative. Taken together,
the Nicaraguan and New Zealand reforms show that radical and
beneficial change can be achieved in very different settings. |
| |
|
| In systems
which do become more decentralized, governments have to be more
tolerant of diversity. The need for such tolerance may be evident
in countries with relatively low enrollments, such as Mali and
Pakistan, as well as in countries with high enrollments such
as Azerbaijan, Albania and New Zealand. |
| |
|
| Elaborating
on the situation in Mali, at one level the government welcomed
the schools operated by NGOs during the 1990s because they helped
reach communities and children who would otherwise have been
unreached. In 1997/98 schools operated by diverse NGOs served
83,400 children; and in the Koulikoro District, for instance,
they had raised the enrollment rate by 10 per cent (Mali 1999,
pp.7-8). However, the government felt uneasy about the nature
of the model employed by some NGOs. For example, the model operated
by Save the Children emphasized vernacular instruction in contrast
to the French-medium mainstream system, and employed teachers
on looser conditions of service compared with the government
system. Indeed, despite legislation which established the Save
the Children institutions as schools, key ministry representatives
considered them to be 'literacy centers' rather than 'real'
primary schools (Tietjen 1999, p.25); and official statistics
listed the Save the Children schools separately from other institutions
(Mali 1999, p.8). The government was more comfortable with other
NGO models which seemed closer in structure to the mainstream
public system, but had some ambivalence even about them. Some
resolution to the problem was achieved when Save the Children
devised a bridging program to allow children to move from its
vernacular schools to French-medium schools in the public system.
However, the government, while welcoming NGO initiatives because
they have increased the volume of education and reached children
who would otherwise have remained unreached, still had to tolerate
greater diversity in the system than existed in the former,
more centralized system (Esquieu & Péano 1996). |
| |
|
| An alternative
situation is one in which the starting point for the balance
between the actors has been rather different. Thus some societies
have had rather decentralized systems which have exhibited considerable
diversity and had problematic features in terms of equity and
coherence. In Asia, for example, the small territory of Macau
until recently had a very uncoordinated collection of systems
which operated independently of each other. Macau was a Portuguese
territory which in 1999 was reunified with China on a model
which followed the 1997 reunification of Hong Kong (Bray & Koo
1999). In 1987 the government of Macau commenced steps to strengthen
the education system so that schools would be less variable
in quality, and so that the public could be assured of minimum
standards in education. The government did this by entering
a partnership with schools, providing finance, training and
guidance. The intervention of the Macau government permitted
launch of a fee-free education system which aimed to improve
access for the poor. Also, the strengthening of coherence within
the education system meant that pupils could more easily transfer
from one school to another, and could progress through the system
with a wider range of options. |
| |
|
| This observation
leads to a broader point about the role of the state in protecting
the interests of the poor. The United Nations Development Programme
(1997, p.101) has pointed out that "the call for people's mobilization
must not be a justification for the state to abdicate its responsibilities".
It has added (p.101) the observation that a poverty eradication
strategy "requires not a retreating, weak state but an active
strong one". Thus, despite the widespread calls for decentralization,
policy-makers should consider the limits of reform and should
pay careful heed to balances. Returning to Arnstein's ladder,
a strong case can be made for avoidance of extremes at both
bottom and top. When education systems are operated exclusively
by governments, they tend to be excessively bureaucratic and
inflexible; but when they are run exclusively by communities
and other non-government actors, they may be inequitable and
fragmented. Partnership provides a more appropriate intermediate
balance. The precise nature of this balance will of course vary
in different situations. It may also need different emphases
at different times (Box 11). |
| |
|
|
Box
11: Walking on Two Legs, or Travelling on Two Railway
Lines
In
the People's Republic of China, partnership between
government and community takes various forms and has
gone through various shifts. One important shift was
a decentralization policy launched in 1980. The rationale
set out in an official document (quoted by Cheng 1997,
p.394) could be echoed elsewhere:
In a large country such as ours, which is heavily populated
and economically under-developed, the task of universalizing
primary education cannot be shouldered by the government
alone.
The authorities mobilized rural communities and local
enterprises to construct and operate schools. The government
paid some teachers, but encouraged communities to employ
additional personnel. The overall policy was known as
"walking on two legs".
The
basic philosophy of partnership was maintained in the
1990s, and did much to promote the quantity and quality
of primary education. Over the years, however, the government
has made various adjustments in the weight on each leg.
For example, while the reform in 1980 increased the
weight on communities, adjustment in 1986 reduced it
by providing government subsidies for the salaries of
community-employed teachers. The early 1990s brought
a different element when private entrepreneurs were
encouraged to play an increasing role; but again the
government monitored and support this initiative.
Sometimes,
an appropriate balance between government and community
has been achieved, and steady progress can be made like
a train moving with equal weight along each railway
line. In other circumstances, periodic adjustment has
to be made to the weightings. This is more like walking,
where weight is placed first on one leg and then on
the other.
|
|
| |
| Points
of Leverage |
| |
|
| Finally,
it is useful to highlight some key points of leverage for initiating
and extending change. Many of these have been mentioned in the
preceding pages; but the major ones can be grouped together
and listed together with others which might otherwise escape
attention. Once again, the nature of the points of leverage
will vary in different societies according to economic, political
and other factors. However, the following six points deserve
particular emphasis. |
| |
|
|
1. Promote
public awareness of goals and rationales. For obvious reasons,
government personnel will be much more likely to work with
communities, and communities will be more likely to come forward
to work with governments, if a clear statement of goals and
rationales has been disseminated and agreed upon. This requires
extensive and sustained commitment through discussion, documentation,
television, radio, public speeches, etc.. In countries as
diverse as New Zealand, Nicaragua and South Africa, advances
in community partnership have evolved through far-reaching
political changes. However, fundamental political change is
not essential: in many settings policy-makers can achieve
a great deal through existing frameworks.
2. Encourage
teachers to reach out and to listen. Teachers commonly underestimate
the extent to which community members can contribute solutions
to educational problems. Carron & Ta Ngoc (1996, pp.171-176)
have compared aspects of school-community relations in China,
Guinea, India and Mexico. In China, class teachers are expected
as part of their normal duties to visit the home of each student
at least once a term. Data collected in Zhejiang Province
in 1990 showed that many teachers did indeed fulfill these
duties (Cheng 1996, p.92). In Guinea, India and Mexico, by
contrast, teachers had weak knowledge of their students' homes;
and when parents came to the schools, the teachers' main objectives
were to remind the parents of various responsibilities in
supervising children, paying fees, and repairing the buildings.
Very rarely were parents involved in broader discussion about
what happens in the classroom and about the major policy dilemmas
facing their schools. Regrettably, developments in China during
the 1990s brought weakening of old standards and practices,
especially in urban areas. However, experience in many contexts
shows that even parents who themselves have low levels of
education are commonly both able and willing to make major
contributions in these domains. Teachers can also reach out
to identify ways in which the school can serve the community,
as opposed to ways in which the community can serve the school.
School buildings can be opened for community functions, and
both students and teachers can assist with community initiatives
to improve the environment, address moral or religious issues,
support the elderly, etc..
3. Employ
community development officers and similar personnel. Box
7, above, mentioned the role of the Community Development
Officer in the Mombasa (Kenya) School Improvement Project.
This individual played a major role in liaison between schools,
homes and communities. Similar personnel have been successfully
employed in projects in other countries (see e.g. Hyde 1999b,
p.13; Bartlett 2000, p.6). In some settings a major task for
such personnel is to create a sense of community in circumstances
where it is lacking. Governments which are concerned about
cost-effectiveness may find that the salaries of these people
represent an excellent investment.
4. Form
parents' associations and/or school committees. While in some
countries parents' associations and school committees have
long histories, in other countries they are recent innovations
or do not exist at all. Experience in various settings has
shown that where parents' associations have their own executive
committees which are separate from the school committees,
careful liaison is necessary to define roles and coordinate
actions. However, the benefits of such associations and committees
have been resoundingly demonstrated in a wide range of settings.
Where they do not already exist, a strong case can be made
for their establishment. Membership of the committees does
not need to be confined to parents. In Cambodia, for example,
a key role is commonly played by Buddhist monks.
5. Provide
matching grants, contracts and other resource inputs. In many
countries, community interest and partnership has been stimulated
through matching grants of various kinds. Such grants may
either be equally balanced (i.e. the government provides one
dollar to match every dollar contributed by the community)
or geared in some way (e.g. the government provides three
dollars for every dollar contributed by the community). Gearing
is a mechanism to provide extra incentives to communities
which need them. Matching grants can be free-standing if desired,
or can be mixed with block grants given to schools at flat
rates. The government of Mauritius has provided such a mixture,
with a ceiling on the funds provided in matching grants in
order to permit financial planning on the government side
(Mauritius 1991, p.112). In Pakistan, provincial governments
have found that grants to PTAs both stimulate and empower
communities to embark on stronger partnerships (Khan & Rafi
1999). The approach in Madagascar has been to establish formal
contracts in which the government provides construction materials
and in many cases teachers, and communities undertake the
construction and agree to enroll and retain pupils (Tilahimena
1999).
6. Provide
Training. Almost all innovations need capacity development
of various kinds. Teachers may not be good at working with
parents and other community members; and parents and other
community members may not be good at working with teachers.
In countries as diverse as Ethiopia, Pakistan and Fiji Islands,
governments and NGOs have run workshops and provided handbooks
and other materials for government officers, head teachers,
and community leaders. Such training may focus on such basic
skills as record-keeping and chairing of meetings. It may
also call attention to issues such as transparency in decision-making,
gender and socio-economic equity, curriculum and facilities
planning, discipline, and employment of school leavers. In
some countries, resources invested in school-level and community-level
workshops have greatly improved the efficiency and effectiveness
of education systems.
|
| |
|
| Where community
self-help initiatives are already strong, the greatest need
may be for harnessing and guiding initiatives rather than for
stimulating them. In these cases, governments may need to provide
technical and professional information, for example in building
designs, accounting, and curriculum development. They may also
need to insist on some controls, e.g. on registration of teachers
and open enrollment for pupils of all religions, genders, socio-economic
strata, etc.. |
| |
|
| In contrast,
where self-help initiatives are weak, governments may need to
find ways to stimulate them. The tactic in Azerbaijan and Albania
has been to commence with the small number of groups which are
responsive, in order to provide a demonstration effect to communities
which might be more reluctant. This strategy risks creation
or exacerbation of inequalities, and also of course demands
resources from the government or other agencies. However, at
least some inequalities might need to be tolerated in order
to achieve broader objectives; and allocation of resources to
develop partnership models might in the long run prove the best
type of investment. |
| |
|
| All these
strategies require sensitive application. This study has emphasized
that partnership has a political dimensions as well as an educational
one, and reforms sometimes lead to unexpected outcomes. However,
sufficient experience has accumulated to show that productive
partnerships can be fostered in circumstances of almost all
types. |
| |
|
|
Box
12: Planning for Partnerships
Discussing
the goal of stronger partnerships at the school and
community level, Shaeffer & Govinda (1997, p.17) highlighted
the importance of planning. "Community-school partnerships
do not easily happen by themselves", they stressed;
"they must be planned for and trained for".
Elaborating
on this statement, Shaeffer and Govinda continued (p.17):
The
system as a whole needs to accept and incorporate certain
structural and procedural changes that facilitate strong
partnerships among the school, the community, and local
education offices. The transfer of some authority (and
responsibility) down to the level of the school and
out to civil society is one such change. But teachers
can be trained to think of themselves as "extension
agents" of the ministry, working with and in the community
as well as in the school; supervisors can be trained
to see that one of their roles is to animate these partnerships;
and community leaders can be helped to understand better
the variety of support that they can offer to the school.
|
|
| |
|
| Return
to contents |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
| |
| |
|
