Difference between revisions of "The Tail by Paul Marshall"

From TheBookbag
Jump to navigationJump to search
(Created page with "{{infobox |title=The Tail |sort=Tail, The |author=Paul Marshall |reviewer=Margaret Young |genre=Politics and Society |rating=1 |buy=No |borrow=Maybe |isbn=978-1781251676 |pag...")
 
 
(5 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{infobox
+
{{infobox1
 
|title=The Tail
 
|title=The Tail
 
|sort=Tail, The
 
|sort=Tail, The
Line 5: Line 5:
 
|reviewer=Margaret Young
 
|reviewer=Margaret Young
 
|genre=Politics and Society
 
|genre=Politics and Society
|rating=1
+
|rating=1.5
 
|buy=No
 
|buy=No
 
|borrow=Maybe
 
|borrow=Maybe
Line 12: Line 12:
 
|publisher=Profile Books
 
|publisher=Profile Books
 
|date=February 2013
 
|date=February 2013
|amazonuk=<amazonuk>1781251673</amazonuk>
+
|video=8Po6Qlq8h34
|amazonus=<amazonus>1781251673</amazonus>
 
|website=
 
|video=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Po6Qlq8h34
 
 
|summary=A disconcerting view of new government's educational agenda in which school children become a commodity to which value can be added in the production ( education) stage, but with no regard for the health and well being of this commodity beyond its future economic output.
 
|summary=A disconcerting view of new government's educational agenda in which school children become a commodity to which value can be added in the production ( education) stage, but with no regard for the health and well being of this commodity beyond its future economic output.
 +
|cover=1781251673
 +
|aznuk=1781251673
 +
|aznus=1781251673
 
}}
 
}}
I as a former youth work I have seen far too many young lives blighted by lack of basic skills in numeracy and literacy. These children have almost no hope of decent employment, but beyond that, the personal costs to these children are huge as well. Can you imagine not being able to read well enough to read your child a bedtime story? Can you imagine not being able to write well enough to fill in admissions form in casualty if your child is hurt? If you can not read, you can not access the Internet, read the directions on medication, or a recipe to cook a meal. The number of children slipping through cracks is simply unacceptable. As some one absolutely passionate about children's literacy issues, I eagerly looked forward to this book, hoping it might shed some new light on this issue, or at least help focus attention on the terrible truth that we are failing all too many of our children.
+
''The Tail'' is edited by Paul Marshall. It is a collection of essays by different writers who all share a common vision. The transition from one writer to another is not noticeable. I have never read a book with so many authors before which had no differences in opinion. This literally has 19 voices which speak as one, each one reiterating a very strong political and economic vision. The uniformity does make for easier reading. If the author of each chapter were not listed, I would assume I was reading the opinion of only one person. But it also displays an extreme lack of balance and at times becomes very tedious as it reads likes a monologue extolling the virtues of a political manifesto. In all honesty, I would have really preferred this with one author and perhaps 100 pages or less, as I felt that I was just reading the same opinion over and over again, as if enough repetition would wear the audience down.
  
''The Tail'' is edited by Paul Marshall, but is actually a collection of essays by different writers who all share a common vision. The transition from one writer to another is not noticeable. I have never read a book with so many authors before which had no differences in opinion. This literally has 19 voices which speak as one, each one reiterating a very strong political and economic vision. The uniformity does make for easy reading, but there is something terrifying about it as well. I am reminded of a children's classic ""A Wrinkle in Time""in which all humans are controlled by a single  entity demanding conformity.  
+
The Tail is term used to refer to the bottom 20% of England's students. These are the children who will leave school lacking basic skills in literacy and numeracy, without any good GCSE's and with very few employment prospects. The book spends a fair amount of time using statistics and graphs to convince that this is bad for the economy. I liked the fact that this book does draw attention to this issue. The book compares UK achievement with other developed countries and I was surprised to learn we rank far below the USA in literacy, with roughly twice as many children failing to achieve basic standards of education in the UK as in other well developed countries. I agree with the authors wholeheartedly that this can not be allowed to continue, and that the effects on the economy are serious as well. I also agree with the author on SEN inflation, but I won't go as far as the author has to blame many parents for intentionally disabling their children to get a DLA check.  
  
 +
I do agree with him on the over use of medication though, and the overuse of labels to justify low achievement. I especially liked that the authors called the safety of these medications into questions, but was appalled that they wanted teachers to be consulted as to whether a child should be given medication. This is a strong infringement on parental rights in my opinion. I do not feel that teachers are trained or qualified to order medication. I do believe he feels the teachers would order less medications, but this has not been the case where I live. I have seen many teachers push parents to medicate as it is - I can't imagine giving them to power to force the issue. The idea that a parent's right to decide on medical treatment should be removed without just cause ins incomprehensible to me.
  
The Tail is term used to refer to  the bottom 20% of England's students. These are the children who will leave school lacking basic skills in literacy and numeracy, without any good GCSE's and with very few employment prospects. The book spends a fair amount of time using statistics and graphs to convince that this is bad for the economy. I liked the fact that this book does draw attention to this issue. The books compares UK achievement with other developed countries and I was surprised to learn we rank far below the USA in literacy, with roughly twice as many children failing to achieve basic standards of education in the UK as in other well developed countries. I agree with the authors wholeheartedly that this can not be allowed to continue, and that the effects on the economy are serious as well. I also agree with the author on SEN inflation, but I won't go as far as the author has  to blame many parents for intentionally disabling their children to get a DLA check. I do agree with him on the over use of medication though, and the overuse of labels to justify low achievement. These children deserve better. But that is as far as my agreement goes. I have only once in my life read a book I found so deeply troubling. Thankfully the author of the previous book had been dead since 1945 and his political vision with him. I do not intend to insinuate the authors or editors share the political vision of the first book, but rarely have I seen an writer call for so much government control of family life, and sadly, with the best of intentions, deep rooted class prejudices have obviously seeped through into this tome. The fact that the editor is a philanthropist and only wants what he believes is best for the lower classes does not make this any less true.
+
I do agree with the authors on some points, but I do not agree at all with the proposals of this book to correct it. In all fairness I will point out that I am a home educating mother, with very strong views on the rights of children and the importance of family, as well as the freedom of parents to raise their children according to their own beliefs so long as the children are happy, well cared for and educated. While education is one of the most important things in life to me, I also feel that a child's physical and mental well being have value as well, and I do want my children, and all children, to have some joy in their childhood. This book went against everything I believe in. I am also a former youth worker with far more experience of children's illiteracy than I would like. I have seen far too many children grow up unable to read, and have seen what works and what does not in helping these children. These experiences have also given me very strong opinions of a programme that I believe would cause more harm than good. This book might perfectly suit a politician arguing for what they see as a better fiscal plan, but to a mother, it is abhorrent.
  
 +
The editor of this book is a former hedge fund manager and philanthropist. I believe that he does honestly mean well - but that his opinion of what is better  might not match the reality. As a member of the working classes, with a great deal of experience in this area, I can't help but bristle at an outsider claiming he knows what is best for our children, without any evidence of his opinions. I'm quite happy for an expert who has spent time with children learning from them to offer comments, but I very much feel that this man's expertise is in financial commodities - not child development. There is never once in this book that I detected any concern for the happiness of children, but it is sneered at on one occasion. He proposes that we manage schools like hedge funds, with no regard whatsoever for the happiness or emotional well being of children. They are seen simply as economic producers which we can add value to in the education process very much as we could add value to a commercial product in the production line. This book suggests a culture of bonuses, much as we saw for the hedge fund managers, based on GCSE and test performance, and sacking 10% of our current teachers.
  
The editor of this book is a former hedge fund manager. He proposes that we manage schools like hedge funds, with no regard whatsoever for the happiness or emotional well being of children. They are seen simply as economic producers which we can add value to in the education process very much as we could add value to a commercial product in the production line. He suggests a culture of bonuses, much as we saw for the hedge fund managers, based on GCSE and test performance, and sacking 10% of our current teachers. He offers a view of uniformity that may in fact reduce the tail, but I see this as most likely to be achieved, not by raising standards of the lowest performing children, but by lowering those at the top. Author Simon Lack had this to say about hedge fund managers : ""Never in the field of human finance was so much charged by so many for so little."" Marshall seems to be proposing we extend the disaster in the markets to the educational system. But this the cost will not be only financial, it will also be weighed in ruined lives.
+
There are suggestions that government should be one centralised bureaucracy ''responsible for the health well being and education of our young children''. Time and time again we get references to parents being unwilling or unable to make the best decisions for their children - the solution is to let the government do it for them. The rights of children and the family appear non existent, but one of the authors says we must resist the idea of schools running 16 hours a day and on weekends as well (I would hope so - do they intend to completely obliterate the family unit?) but he still sees schools as ''the principle source of moral and practical authority''. I would disagree most strongly. The family should be the principle source of moral authority in a child's life.
  
 +
One of the factors which I felt did make this book much less pleasant to read was the over use of charts and statistics. There seems to be a concerted attempt to bowl the reader over with statistics, but these statistics are irrelevant without further data. Any good scientist knows that correlation does not always equal causation and children are living, feeling beings, not so easily reduced to graphs and charts as a financial commodity. Again, there is no attempt whatsoever at balance; studies and statistics which would counter the mantra of this book are never displayed. Throughout the book, I felt as if I were sitting through a sales meeting in which someone was trying to pitch a product to me, and these charts were simply another sales prop.
  
There are suggestions that government should have one centralised bureaucracy  "" responsible for the health well being and education of our young children"". Time and time again we get references to parents being unwilling or unable to make the best decisions for their children - the solution is to let the government do it for them. The rights of children and the family appear non existent, but one of the authors says we must resist the idea of schools running 16 hours a day and on weekends as well ( I would hope so - do they intend to completely obliterate the family unit?) but he still sees schools as ""the principle source of moral and practical authority"". I would disagree most strongly. The family should be the principle source of moral authority in a child's life. This book offers no respect whatsoever for the sanctity of the family.
+
I was extremely distressed by most of the solutions offered by this book. I deeply resented calls for more government intrusion into the private lives of families. I also disliked the idea of government intervention at earlier and earlier ages. I desperately wish programmes were in place to help those who truly need help - but I do not feel that trying to force education at an earlier age is beneficial , and in fact, hard science supports my opinion. Those countries that out rank us in reading scores consistently start reading instruction later, rather than earlier. The concept of reading readiness is never mentioned here. I also noted that Canada is praised for its educational system's success - but no mention is made of the fact that Canada's system is a polar opposite of what this book proposes. A reader with no prior knowledge of the Canadian school systems would be left with a very inaccurate impression it. Canada has one of the most enlightened - and successful education systems in the world. If only the authors had taken the time to learn what makes them so successful, this would have been a different book.
  
 +
Further calls for children to spend more hours in school means they have less time for play - a critical component in child development, and less time to spend with their families. Again - I can't help but feel that the overall idea is to break the influence of the family. I believe children have a right to play, to free time and even to read - on their own. Forcing young children to put in an 8 hour day is inhumane to me. By the time they travel to and from school, and complete homework - what time is left for personal development and growth, for play or creativity? It's easy to discount play, but anyone truly versed in child development is well aware of its importance in creativity, intelligence and mental health.
 +
 +
Nor is there any evidence that more hours in school produces the desired results. Again - the countries with later school starting ages and reduced school hours consistently out perform us - but these facts are never mentioned. If the reader has not done quite a lot of research into these facts though, it would be easy to come away from this book with very inaccurate opinions of these practices. At one time, American schools taught almost all children basic literacy and numeracy in only a few years, with shorter school days and a shorter school year. Steiner schools still exceed the educational attainment of mainstream schooling without sacrificing the child's emotional and physical development as well. Current practices are not working. We do not need more of the same bad medicine. Study after study has shown us you can teach basic literacy to a child in only a matter of months with one on one tuition. This would be far less costly than the proposed bonus culture and could easily be done now using the pupil premium as it was meant to be used. Even better, schools could follow the Montessori tradition and allow teaching to form a strong basis for learning as well. Older children could cement their skills through teaching the youngest. I can see no evidence in this book that leads me to believe any research was done as to the effectiveness of the theories they wish to enforce.
  
There are other solutions offered in this book, but none which show any real promise of improvement. In every case the cure is worse than the disease. There seems to be a concerted attempt to bowl the reader over with statistics, but I would expect a former hedge fund manager to know just how easy it is to lie with statistics. for every statistic he uses to prove his point, I could give several to disprove it.  there has been no attempt made to present a balanced pictured here. Instead statistics are only used as they would be in PowerPoint presentation with plenty of hyperbole. Good science requires you to look at other mitigating factors as well, but that clearly is not done in many cases.  
+
Finally, while I am not a Labour supporter and never have been, I did grow very tired of the constant jabs at Labour. I have been at political AGM's in the past, and this book read more like a combination of political manifesto and a post AGM social session's jabs at the opposing party than a work on education. No chance was ever missed to throw mud at the Labour party - making this book very party political. I found this book more about blame than solutions. The authors blame the Labour party, blame the parents and blame the teachers, but never do they offer a well researched solution.
  
 +
Despite my complete rejection of everything ths book stands for, I will still recommend borrowing. It is not a pleasant read. It is not even a well organised book. But the fact that it has been endorsed by certain policy makers means it should be read. Prior to reading this, I sincerely believed allowing big business to run some schools might be beneficial to students. After reading this I would never dream of encouraging such an idea. In attempting to convince me why schools should be run as a business, the authors have given me far more convincing reasons to oppose this than their worst critic could ever dream of.
  
The editor here clearly has more knowledge of financial commodities than child development. He fails to see that there is more to education than the bottom line. The increased school hours  dictated by his Ark schools leave children with no time to play - something which people with more knowledge of child development than manipulating investors know is critical to raising healthy creative children. His factory style conformity may result in inflated test scores, but the long term losses in creativity, emotional security and mental health have not been calculated. In addition, I believe a case could be made in the Court of Human Rights, that this restricts the universal right of the child to play, especially when commute times are added to school hours  and there is no objective evidence that this works.
+
You might also find the following books useful:
  
 +
[[Captive State: The Corporate Takeover of Britain by George Monbiot]] <br>
 +
[[Bad Science by Ben Goldacre]]
  
At one time, American schools taught almost all children basic literacy and numeracy in only a few years. with shorter school days and a shorter school year.  Steiner schools still exceed the educational attainment of mainstream schooling without sacrificing the child's emotional and physical development as well. Current practices are not working. We do  not need more of the same bad medicine. Study after study has shown us you can teach basic literacy to a child in only a matter of months with one on one tuition. This would be far less costly than the proposed bonus culture, and could easily be done now using the pupil premium as it was meant to. Even better, schools could follow the Montessori tradition and allow teaching to form a strong basis for learning as well. Older children could cement their skills through teaching the youngest.  Canada's success is mentioned, but Canada has a school system built on parental choice and the importance of family.The draconian measures suggested here show no promise of improvement. there are so many things that could be done quite easily to improve the educational outcome for all children. Sadly this seems like another money making scheme for which our children will pay the ultimate price.
+
{{amazontext|amazon=1781251673}}
 +
{{amazonUStext|amazon=1781251673}}
  
 
Despite my complete rejection of everything ths book stands for,  I will still recommend borrowing. The scary fact is this book is endorsed by leading politicians. the public should be aware of the opinion these powerful men, and that alone makes this book worth reading. The very thought of that kept me awake many hours after finishing this book. I honestly wish I had never read it. It paints a very bleak picture of the future of this nation if the men in charge can so easily endorse this. My one ray of hope is that they may not have actually read the book, but simply slapped on an endorsement for something that fits meets many political goals, and never misses a chance to sully the  Labour Party. This book argues against reducing child poverty as inefective for improving academic performance,  and this might win them a few points with the ultra conservatives. This is clearly a political manifesto, and a terribly chilling one.
 
 
 
[[Captive State: The Corporate Takeover of Britain by George Monbiot ]]
 
 
[[ Bad Science by Ben Goldacre ]]
 
 
 
{{amazontext|amazon=1781251673 }} {{waterstonestext|waterstones=9601721}}
 
 
{{commenthead}}
 
{{commenthead}}

Latest revision as of 13:01, 14 April 2018


The Tail by Paul Marshall

1781251673.jpg
Buy The Tail by Paul Marshall at Amazon.co.uk or Amazon.com

Category: Politics and Society
Rating: 1.5/5
Reviewer: Margaret Young
Reviewed by Margaret Young
Summary: A disconcerting view of new government's educational agenda in which school children become a commodity to which value can be added in the production ( education) stage, but with no regard for the health and well being of this commodity beyond its future economic output.
Buy? No Borrow? Maybe
Pages: 224 Date: February 2013
Publisher: Profile Books
ISBN: 978-1781251676

Share on: Facebook Follow us on Twitter Follow us on Instagram and LinkedIn

Video:



The Tail is edited by Paul Marshall. It is a collection of essays by different writers who all share a common vision. The transition from one writer to another is not noticeable. I have never read a book with so many authors before which had no differences in opinion. This literally has 19 voices which speak as one, each one reiterating a very strong political and economic vision. The uniformity does make for easier reading. If the author of each chapter were not listed, I would assume I was reading the opinion of only one person. But it also displays an extreme lack of balance and at times becomes very tedious as it reads likes a monologue extolling the virtues of a political manifesto. In all honesty, I would have really preferred this with one author and perhaps 100 pages or less, as I felt that I was just reading the same opinion over and over again, as if enough repetition would wear the audience down.

The Tail is term used to refer to the bottom 20% of England's students. These are the children who will leave school lacking basic skills in literacy and numeracy, without any good GCSE's and with very few employment prospects. The book spends a fair amount of time using statistics and graphs to convince that this is bad for the economy. I liked the fact that this book does draw attention to this issue. The book compares UK achievement with other developed countries and I was surprised to learn we rank far below the USA in literacy, with roughly twice as many children failing to achieve basic standards of education in the UK as in other well developed countries. I agree with the authors wholeheartedly that this can not be allowed to continue, and that the effects on the economy are serious as well. I also agree with the author on SEN inflation, but I won't go as far as the author has to blame many parents for intentionally disabling their children to get a DLA check.

I do agree with him on the over use of medication though, and the overuse of labels to justify low achievement. I especially liked that the authors called the safety of these medications into questions, but was appalled that they wanted teachers to be consulted as to whether a child should be given medication. This is a strong infringement on parental rights in my opinion. I do not feel that teachers are trained or qualified to order medication. I do believe he feels the teachers would order less medications, but this has not been the case where I live. I have seen many teachers push parents to medicate as it is - I can't imagine giving them to power to force the issue. The idea that a parent's right to decide on medical treatment should be removed without just cause ins incomprehensible to me.

I do agree with the authors on some points, but I do not agree at all with the proposals of this book to correct it. In all fairness I will point out that I am a home educating mother, with very strong views on the rights of children and the importance of family, as well as the freedom of parents to raise their children according to their own beliefs so long as the children are happy, well cared for and educated. While education is one of the most important things in life to me, I also feel that a child's physical and mental well being have value as well, and I do want my children, and all children, to have some joy in their childhood. This book went against everything I believe in. I am also a former youth worker with far more experience of children's illiteracy than I would like. I have seen far too many children grow up unable to read, and have seen what works and what does not in helping these children. These experiences have also given me very strong opinions of a programme that I believe would cause more harm than good. This book might perfectly suit a politician arguing for what they see as a better fiscal plan, but to a mother, it is abhorrent.

The editor of this book is a former hedge fund manager and philanthropist. I believe that he does honestly mean well - but that his opinion of what is better might not match the reality. As a member of the working classes, with a great deal of experience in this area, I can't help but bristle at an outsider claiming he knows what is best for our children, without any evidence of his opinions. I'm quite happy for an expert who has spent time with children learning from them to offer comments, but I very much feel that this man's expertise is in financial commodities - not child development. There is never once in this book that I detected any concern for the happiness of children, but it is sneered at on one occasion. He proposes that we manage schools like hedge funds, with no regard whatsoever for the happiness or emotional well being of children. They are seen simply as economic producers which we can add value to in the education process very much as we could add value to a commercial product in the production line. This book suggests a culture of bonuses, much as we saw for the hedge fund managers, based on GCSE and test performance, and sacking 10% of our current teachers.

There are suggestions that government should be one centralised bureaucracy responsible for the health well being and education of our young children. Time and time again we get references to parents being unwilling or unable to make the best decisions for their children - the solution is to let the government do it for them. The rights of children and the family appear non existent, but one of the authors says we must resist the idea of schools running 16 hours a day and on weekends as well (I would hope so - do they intend to completely obliterate the family unit?) but he still sees schools as the principle source of moral and practical authority. I would disagree most strongly. The family should be the principle source of moral authority in a child's life.

One of the factors which I felt did make this book much less pleasant to read was the over use of charts and statistics. There seems to be a concerted attempt to bowl the reader over with statistics, but these statistics are irrelevant without further data. Any good scientist knows that correlation does not always equal causation and children are living, feeling beings, not so easily reduced to graphs and charts as a financial commodity. Again, there is no attempt whatsoever at balance; studies and statistics which would counter the mantra of this book are never displayed. Throughout the book, I felt as if I were sitting through a sales meeting in which someone was trying to pitch a product to me, and these charts were simply another sales prop.

I was extremely distressed by most of the solutions offered by this book. I deeply resented calls for more government intrusion into the private lives of families. I also disliked the idea of government intervention at earlier and earlier ages. I desperately wish programmes were in place to help those who truly need help - but I do not feel that trying to force education at an earlier age is beneficial , and in fact, hard science supports my opinion. Those countries that out rank us in reading scores consistently start reading instruction later, rather than earlier. The concept of reading readiness is never mentioned here. I also noted that Canada is praised for its educational system's success - but no mention is made of the fact that Canada's system is a polar opposite of what this book proposes. A reader with no prior knowledge of the Canadian school systems would be left with a very inaccurate impression it. Canada has one of the most enlightened - and successful education systems in the world. If only the authors had taken the time to learn what makes them so successful, this would have been a different book.

Further calls for children to spend more hours in school means they have less time for play - a critical component in child development, and less time to spend with their families. Again - I can't help but feel that the overall idea is to break the influence of the family. I believe children have a right to play, to free time and even to read - on their own. Forcing young children to put in an 8 hour day is inhumane to me. By the time they travel to and from school, and complete homework - what time is left for personal development and growth, for play or creativity? It's easy to discount play, but anyone truly versed in child development is well aware of its importance in creativity, intelligence and mental health.

Nor is there any evidence that more hours in school produces the desired results. Again - the countries with later school starting ages and reduced school hours consistently out perform us - but these facts are never mentioned. If the reader has not done quite a lot of research into these facts though, it would be easy to come away from this book with very inaccurate opinions of these practices. At one time, American schools taught almost all children basic literacy and numeracy in only a few years, with shorter school days and a shorter school year. Steiner schools still exceed the educational attainment of mainstream schooling without sacrificing the child's emotional and physical development as well. Current practices are not working. We do not need more of the same bad medicine. Study after study has shown us you can teach basic literacy to a child in only a matter of months with one on one tuition. This would be far less costly than the proposed bonus culture and could easily be done now using the pupil premium as it was meant to be used. Even better, schools could follow the Montessori tradition and allow teaching to form a strong basis for learning as well. Older children could cement their skills through teaching the youngest. I can see no evidence in this book that leads me to believe any research was done as to the effectiveness of the theories they wish to enforce.

Finally, while I am not a Labour supporter and never have been, I did grow very tired of the constant jabs at Labour. I have been at political AGM's in the past, and this book read more like a combination of political manifesto and a post AGM social session's jabs at the opposing party than a work on education. No chance was ever missed to throw mud at the Labour party - making this book very party political. I found this book more about blame than solutions. The authors blame the Labour party, blame the parents and blame the teachers, but never do they offer a well researched solution.

Despite my complete rejection of everything ths book stands for, I will still recommend borrowing. It is not a pleasant read. It is not even a well organised book. But the fact that it has been endorsed by certain policy makers means it should be read. Prior to reading this, I sincerely believed allowing big business to run some schools might be beneficial to students. After reading this I would never dream of encouraging such an idea. In attempting to convince me why schools should be run as a business, the authors have given me far more convincing reasons to oppose this than their worst critic could ever dream of.

You might also find the following books useful:

Captive State: The Corporate Takeover of Britain by George Monbiot
Bad Science by Ben Goldacre

Please share on: Facebook Facebook, Follow us on Twitter Twitter and Follow us on Instagram Instagram

Buy The Tail by Paul Marshall at Amazon You can read more book reviews or buy The Tail by Paul Marshall at Amazon.co.uk Amazon currently charges £2.99 for standard delivery for orders under £20, over which delivery is free.
Buy The Tail by Paul Marshall at Amazon You can read more book reviews or buy The Tail by Paul Marshall at Amazon.com.

Comments

Like to comment on this review?

Just send us an email and we'll put the best up on the site.