ࡱ>      {o: @ Ibjbj00  RbRbA92222228j23 |=^=(>>D>AB!CD$2R>!eC@^AeCeC!>D>u6KKKeCBR>(D>KeCKK ǔ|"D>= dn"22J"C?GL0|J" eCeCKeCeCeCeCeC!!$-22J22THE KEY STAGE 3 NATIONAL STRATEGY FOR MATHEMATICS: its affects on pupils attitudes to mathematics and their classroom experiences. Paul J. Wilson Submitted by Paul John Wilson to the as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Education in Mathematics Education, January 2003. This dissertation is available for Library use on the understanding that it is copyright material and that no quotation from the dissertation may be published without proper acknowledgement. I certify that all material in this dissertation which is not my own work has been identified and that no material has previously been submitted and approved for the award of a degree by this or any other University. ABSTRACT This account explores how, for Year 8 pupils from a large comprehensive school, the introduction of the Key Stage 3 National Strategy for Mathematics has affected both their attitudes to mathematics and their experiences of mathematics teaching. Data were collected from two groups of pupils using a questionnaire. The first (Year 8: 2001-2002) had not been formally affected by the implementation of the Strategy. The second group (Year 8: 2002-2003) had been taught in line with the Key Stage 3 Strategy for mathematics from Year 7. Comparisons were made between the two sets of results. The questionnaire consisted of two sections, corresponding to the two areas of investigation: what you think about mathematics and maths lessons. The first section consisted of eighteen items concerning pupils beliefs and feelings about mathematics from the Third International Mathematics and Science (Keys et al, 1997). This enabled comparisons to be made between both samples and the TIMSS English results from 1996. The second section concerned the teaching approaches recommended by the Framework (DfES, 2001). Four items were from TIMSS, the remaining 23 items were devised to cover all of the approaches to teaching recommended for the Strategy. There is no evidence from this project that the implementation of the Strategy has had a negative affect on pupils attitudes, as had been suggested by some commentators. In fact, there is some indication that pupils attitudes may have improved. There is evidence from the pupils responses that their teachers have started to adopt the teaching approaches recommended for the Strategy, though this varies between the teachers and between teaching approaches. The attitudes results from this project are more negative than those from TIMSS. This may be a characteristic of the two sample populations, or indicate that the TIMSS attitude results have limited relevance to these populations. These results will contribute to the departments review of the implementation of the Key Stage 3 Strategy. INSET will continue to focus on developing effective approaches to teaching, in line with the recommendations of the Framework. However, in order to avoid overtly mechanistic approaches, departmental members will be encouraged to be flexible and creative in their teaching. List of Contents Title Page Abstract 4 List of Contents 8 List of Tables 10 Introduction 14 Chapter 1 The Introduction of The Key Stage 3 Strategy for Mathematics 1.1 The Historical Background 15 1.2 Contemporary Concerns about Standards 18 1.3 The National Numeracy Strategy 19 1.4 The Key Stage Three Strategy for Mathematics 23 Chapter 2 The Framework and the Aims and Pedagogy of the Key Stage Three Strategy for Mathematics 23 2.1 The Framework 27 2.1.1 Expectations 28 2.1.2 Progression 29 2.1.3 Engagement 30 2.1.4 Transformation 31 2.2 The Aims of the Strategy 33 2.2.1 Raising Standards 35 2.2.2 Greater Central Control of the Curriculum and Pedagogy 35 2.2.3 Summary: the Aims of the Strategy 37 2.3 The Curricular Implications of the Strategy 37 2.3.1 Curriculum Organisation 40 2.3.2 Curriculum Content 40 2.3.3 Numeracy 42 2.3.4 The National Curriculum Attainment Targets 44 2.3.5 Summary: the Curricular Implications of the Key Stage Three Strategy 45 2.4 The Pedagogy of the Strategy 45 2.4.1 Direct Interactive Teaching 47 2.4.2 The Three Part Lesson 48 2.4.3 A Typical Mathematics Lesson 50 2.4.4 Special Needs in Mathematics 51 2.4.5 Summary: the Pedagogy of the Strategy 53 Chapter 3 A Critical Review of the Strategy 53 3.1 Theoretical and Empirical Evidence Underpinning the Strategy 57 3.2 The Introduction of the Strategy 58 3.3 Levelness 62 3.4 Special Needs and Differentiation 64 3.5 Direct Interactive Whole-Class Teaching 67 3.6 Attitudes and Affective Responses to Mathematics 72 3.7 Summary 73 Chapter 4 Methodology 73 4.1 Research Paradigms 76 4.2 Principles Underlying the Strategy and TIMMS 78 4.3 Summary 80 Chapter 5 Methods 80 5.1 Overview 81 5.2 The School 82 5.3 The Year Eight Sample 83 5.4 Sample Size 84 5.5 Using a Questionnaire 85 5.6 TIMSS Items 86 5.7 Clusters 87 5.8 Section 1 Items 89 5.9 Section 2 Items 90 5.10 Section 2 Clusters 95 5.11 Methods of Analysis 98 5.12 The Pilot 99 5.13 Validity and Reliability 103 5.14 Ethics 106 Chapter 6 Analysis of the 2001 Research Data 106 6.1 Measures 107 6.2 2001 Data 109 6.3 Section 1 2001 110 6.4 Section 1 Clusters 117 6.5 Section 2 2001 118 6.6 Section 2 Clusters 128 6.7 Teachers Results 132 6.8 Summary of the 2001 Data 135 Chapter 7 Analysis of the 2002 Research Data 135 7.1 2002 Data 138 7.2 Section 1 2002 139 7.3 Section 1 Clusters 144 7.4 Section 2 2002 145 7.5 Section 2 Clusters 155 7.6 Teachers Results 160 7.7 Summary of the 2002 Data 163 Chapter 8 Comparison of the 2001 and the 2002 Research Data 163 8.1 Section 1 Data Pupils 164 8.2 Differences in the Whole Sample Results Between 2001 and 2002 165 8.3 Differences Between the Genders 166 8.4 Section 1 Clusters 168 8.5 Section 2 170 8.6 Section 2 clusters 181 8.7 The Pupils Additional Comments 183 8.8 Teachers Results 186 8.9 Summary 191 Chapter 9 Conclusions and Evaluation 191 9.1 The Results of the Project 194 9.2 The School Context 197 9.3 The Wider Significance of the Results 200 9.4 Areas for Further Research 202 9.5 Consequences of the Project 203 9.6 Evaluation 208 Chapter 10 Postscript 209 10.1 My Role as Head of Department and Researcher 211 10.2 Classroom Observations 212 10.3 The Numeracy Consultants View 214 10.4 The Pupils Attainment in National Testing 216 10.4.1 Key Stage 2 Results 217 10.4.2 NFER CAT Screening Tests 219 10.5 A Personal View of the Introduction of the Key Stage 3 Strategy in the School 221 10.6 A Contextual Review of the Research Findings Appendices (omitted from this document. Contact author for details) 223 Appendix 5: Student Questionnaire: Final Version 227 Appendix 5:1 Questionnaire Framework Grid Appendix 5.2: List of Clusters Appendix 5.14: Note To Pupils Appendix 6.2: 2001 Overall Analysis Appendix 6.3: 2001 Section 1 and TIMSS Appendix 6.4: Section 1 Clusters Appendix 6.4d1: Individual Questions in Cluster D 234 Appendix 6.4e1: Individual Questions in Cluster E 235 Appendix 6.7a: Comparison Teacher and Pupil 2001 241 Appendix 6.7b: Teacher and Pupil 2001 Agreements 242 Appendix 7.1 2002 Overall Analysis 243 Appendix 7.2: 2002 Section 1 and TIMSS 244 Appendix 7.3: Section 1 Clusters 245 Appendix 7.3c1: Individual Questions in Cluster C 246 Appendix 7.3d1: Individual Questions in Cluster D 247 Appendix 7.3e1: Individual Questions in Cluster E 248 Appendix 7.6a: Comparison: Teacher and Pupil 2002 254 Appendix 7.6b: Teacher and Pupil 2002 Agreements. 255 Appendix 8.1: Section 1 Analysis of Individual Questions 258 Appendix 8.4: Section 1 Clusters 259 Appendix 8.5: Section 2 Analysis of Individual Questions 263 Appendix 8.6: Section 2 Clusters Revised 264 Appendix 8.7 Section 2 Analysis of Teachers' Responses to Individual Questions Appendix 10.3 The Numeracy Consultants View Appendix 10.4 Comparison of Y8 Teacher Assessments Appendix 10.4.1: Comparison of KS2 Results 270 Appendix 10.4.2a: NFER Predictions 271 Appendix 10.4.2b: Comparison of NFER Forecasts 272 Bibliography List of Tables 29 Table 2.1.2 School Year and National Curriculum Level 107 Table 6.2 2001 Pupil Data 109 Table 6.3 2001 Data: Comparison with TIMSS 111 Table 6.4a 2001 Section 1 Cluster A 112 Table 6.4b 2001 Section 1 Cluster B 113 Table 6.4c 2001 Section 1 Cluster C 114 Table 6.4d 2001 Section 1 Cluster D 114 Table 6.4d1 2001 Section 1 Cluster D (by gender) 115 Table 6.4e 2001 Section 1 Cluster E 116 Table 6.4e1 2001 Section 1 Cluster E (by gender) 118 Table 6.6a 2001 Section 2 Cluster A 119 Table 6.6b 2001 Section 2 Cluster B 121 Table 6.6c 2001 Section 2 Cluster C 122 Table 6.6d 2001 Section 2 Cluster D 123 Table 6.6e 2001 Section 2 Cluster E 123 Table 6.6f 2001 Section 2 Cluster F 124 Table 6.6g 2001 Section 2 Cluster G 125 Table 6.6h 2001 Section 2 Cluster H 125 Table 6.6i 2001 Section 2 Cluster I 126 Table 6.6j 2001 Section 2 Cluster J 127 Table 6.6k 2001 Section 2 Cluster K 129 Table 6.7 2001 Teachers Results 136 Table 7.1 2001 Pupil Data 138 Table 7.2 2002 Data: Comparison with TIMSS 140 Table 7.3a 2002 Section 1 Cluster A 140 Table 7.3b 2002 Section 1 Cluster B 141 Table 7.3c 2002 Section 1 Cluster C 142 Table 7.3d 2002 Section 1 Cluster D 143 Table 7.3e 2002 Section 1 Cluster E 145 Table 7.5a 2002 Section 2 Cluster A 146 Table 7.5b 2002 Section 2 Cluster B 148 Table 7.5c 2002 Section 2 Cluster C 149 Table 7.5d 2002 Section 2 Cluster D 150 Table 7.5e 2002 Section 2 Cluster E 150 Table 7.5f 2002 Section 2 Cluster F 151 Table 7.5g 2002 Section 2 Cluster G 152 Table 7.5h 2002 Section 2 Cluster H 153 Table 7.5i 2002 Section 2 Cluster I 154 Table 7.5j 2002 Section 2 Cluster J 155 Table 7.5k 2002 Section 2 Cluster K 156 Table 7.6 2002 Teachers Results 163 Table 8.1 Section 1: Comparison of Pupil Data 168 Table 8.5 Section 2: Comparison of Pupil Data 170 Table 8.6a Section 2: Comparison of Cluster A 171 Table 8.6b Section 2: Comparison of Cluster B 173 Table 8.6c Section 2: Comparison of Cluster C 174 Table 8.6d Section 2: Comparison of Cluster D 175 Table 8.6e Section 2: Comparison of Cluster E 176 Table 8.6f Section 2: Comparison of Cluster F 177 Table 8.6g Section 2: Comparison of Cluster G 177 Table 8.6h Section 2: Comparison of Cluster H 178 Table 8.6i Section 2: Comparison of Cluster I 179 Table 8.6j Section 2: Comparison of Cluster J 180 Table 8.6k Section 2: Comparison of Cluster K 183 Table 8.8 Comparison of Teachers Results 215 Table 10.4 Year 8 Teacher Assessments 216 Table 10.4.1 Key Stage 2 Results 217 Table 10.4.2 NFER CAT Forecasts INTRODUCTION The Key Stage 3 National Strategy was implemented in September 2001 with the intention of building on the results of the Literacy and Numeracy Strategies in primary schools. This was to be achieved by drawing on the best practice in secondary schools, experience in the 205 schools that have piloted developments in Key Stage 3, and findings from inspection and research about what helps to raise standards. (DfEE, 2001: 2). In the review of the pilot which preceded the introduction of the Strategy (Ofsted, 2002), it is stated that the aim of the Strategy is to raise standards by strengthening teaching and learning, developing cross-curricular skills such as literacy and helping pupils who come into Year 7 below level 4 to make faster progress (ibid: 1). These aims may be summarised as raising standards of attainment in mathematics through the following mechanisms: promoting progression and continuity in the curriculum developing effective and engaging teaching approaches setting challenging expectations training and supporting teachers in developing effective teaching approaches. Although the implementation of the Strategy is not mandatory, there is an expectation that schools should use the Framework or be able to justify not doing so by reference to what they are doing. (ibid: 2). The Framework describes ambitious targets (ibid: p2) for attainment in the Key Stage 3 National Curriculum tests (75% at level 5 or above by 2004 (TES, 2001d: 8)). The first target is set for 2004, so there is a three-year delay between the implementation of the Strategy and an evaluation of performance outcomes. (It will take three years for the first cohort of students to follow the programme of the Framework throughout Key Stage 3.) Since the results of these tests will be in the public domain, it will be obvious whether or not the targets have been met. However, it may prove more difficult to evaluate how the Strategy has affected the performance in the tests. Meeting the targets for the tests will not necessarily imply that standards have been raised for all pupils, it will not even imply that they have been met for the majority. In its booster materials (DfES, 2002b), designed to help pupils prepare for the tests, schools are required to concentrate on those pupils whose attainment can realistically be boosted to level 5. Thus, it may be possible to achieve the targets by raising the attainment of a minority of pupils. As described above, developing effective and engaging teaching approaches is one of the mechanisms offered for raising standards of attainment. As I describe in the following chapter, the Framework identifies and recommends specific teaching approaches. Significant sums of money have been provided by the DfEE (and later DfES) to promote these approaches through INSET programmes (overall the Government has planned to spend more than 420 million over three years on implementing the Strategy (TES, 2001b: 19)). My aim in this research project is to explore how the introduction of the Key Stage 3 Strategy and its associated pedagogy has affected the teaching approaches that pupils experience in a large comprehensive school. I will also explore how pupils perceptions of mathematics and mathematics lessons have been affected by the introduction of the Strategy. To do this I have investigated pupils attitudes and responses to mathematics and their perceptions of the mathematics teaching they experience. In order to collect the data I devised a pupils questionnaire comprising two sections. The first section, What you think about mathematics, consisted of 18 questions concerning the respondents attitudes to mathematics. The second section, Maths lessons concerned how the pupils perceived the classroom approaches they had experienced. The questions in the first section were taken from a major international survey, the Third International Mathematics and Science , or TIMSS (Keys et al, 1997). The second section was more specific, focussing on the particular teaching approaches promoted within the documentation of the Strategy (in particular the Framework). Only four of the TIMSS items addressed the teaching approaches that I had identified for the questionnaire. I included these items in the second section and devised another 23 items to address the other teaching approaches that I had identified. There were two reasons for using the TIMSS items. First, TIMSS items were tried and tested and should help to ensure the reliability and validity of my methods. Secondly, my results could be compared with national and international results. I chose to focus on Year 8 pupils for this project. In the academic year 2000-2001 the Strategy was in its pilot stage and Year 8 pupils from the sample school were not involved in its implementation. Pupils from the next Year 8 cohort (in academic year 2001-2002) were subject to the full implementation of the Strategy. I collected data from most of the members of both Year 8 populations. This allowed me to compare data from before and after the introduction of the Strategy, drawn from comparable samples. Although this sample cannot be treated as a representative sample of Key Stage 3 students nationally, I hope that the results of the investigation may offer illumination and evaluative insights into the implementation of the Strategy. In the following account I will: examine the factors that contributed to the introduction of the Key Stage 3 Strategy examine the aims and curricular and pedagogical implications of the Strategy review the literature concerning the Strategy and pupils perceptions of mathematics and mathematics teaching describe my methodology describe how the research project was designed and piloted analyse the data for the first group of Year 8 pupils analyse the data for the second group of Year 8 pupils compare these two sets of data, to investigate changes in pupils perceptions of maths and maths teaching since the launch of the Strategy present my conclusions and evaluate the research project. offer a brief, personal, postscript to the account of this project CHAPTER ONE THE INTRODUCTION OF THE KEY STAGE 3 STRATEGY FOR MATHEMATICS 1.1 The Historical Background There has been public criticism of the standards of mathematical attainment and teaching within the education system in England and Wales for more than a hundred years. The focus of much of this criticism has been on poor standards of arithmetic. These criticisms have been accompanied by adverse comparisons with standards in other countries (Ernest, 2000: 19-21). Her Majestys Inspectorate of Schools (HMI) reported poor results in arithmetic in 1876. In arithmetic, I regret to say worse results than ever have been obtainedthe failures are almost invariably traceable to radically imperfect teaching (Cockcroft, 1982: xii). A decade later, a Royal Commission reported lower standards of education than in Germany. This reflected fears originating from the time of the Great Exhibition in 1851, some 30 years earlier, that Germany was outstripping Britain in science and technology (Ernest, 2000). These concerns persisted throughout the 20th century. In 1925, a Board of Education report highlighted some uneasiness about the condition of arithmetical knowledge and teaching at the present timeaccuracy in the manipulation of figures does not reach the same standard which was reached twenty years ago (Cockcroft, 1982: xii). A Mathematical Association report of 1954 stated that The standard of mathematical ability of entrants to trade courses is often very low(they) have hazy ideas on some very easy arithmetical processes, and retain no trace of knowledge of algebra, graphs or geometry, if in fact they ever did possess any (ibid: xii). In 1964, the First International Mathematics (FIMS) measured mathematical attainment in ten different countries. The results of this survey indicated that English pupils were less successful than pupils from many of Englands economic competitors (Howson, 1989). Contemporary Concerns about Standards Criticisms came to a head in 1976, in a speech by the then Prime Minister, James Callaghan at Ruskin College (Callaghan, 1976). In his speech, Callaghan said I am concerned on my journeys to find complaints from industry that new recruits from the schools sometimes do not have the basic tools to do the job that is required (ibid: 12). Dealing with mathematics in particular, he said, There is concern about the standards of numeracy of school leavers. Is there not a case for a professional review of the mathematics needed by industry at different levels? (ibid: 12). This expression of dissatisfaction with the outcomes of the education system initiated what became widely known as the Great Debate, concerning educational standards and the educational needs of society and industry in particular. The Great Debate took place in a climate affected by the continued diminution of Britains economic status since the 1939-1945 war, the loss of lucrative colonial power and difficult labour relations in the 1960s and 1970s. Despite these contributory factors, Callaghan expressed a popular belief that poor standards in education in general, and in mathematics in particular, were major factors in the nations industrial ills. These concerns were heightened by indications that English pupils were performing less well in mathematics than pupils from many other countries, including economic competitors. The issue of standards in mathematics (and, in particular, numeracy), continues to have political importance. Consequences of poor standards are identified both for individual citizens and for the state. Tikly (2000: 25) describes the view that the levels of mathematical knowledge of the majority of the British population deprives individuals of career opportunities and is producing an increasing deficit in industry, finance and society of the sort of mathematical thinking that is required to maintain and develop mathematically based systems. In a recent article in the Guardian (Ahmed, 2002: 5), it was claimed that Britains under-educated workforce costs this country 15 billion every two years. Later in the article, the costs of a limited education are identified in lost earnings over an individuals lifetime. From this brief historic account, three sections of society can be identified as having vested interests in ensuring high standards of mathematics education: the state, industrialists and the workforce. The interests of these three groups are inter-connected and are dependent on economic success. Hence, from this perspective, political interest in standards of mathematics education may be seen as largely motivated by economic concerns. Callaghans speech was followed by a Government report in 1977, which called for an inquiry into the teaching of mathematics. This was established in 1978 under the chairmanship of Dr W H Cockcroft (1982). Its terms of reference were To consider the teaching of mathematics in primary and secondary schools in England and Wales, with particular regard to the mathematics required in further and higher education, employment and adult life generally, and to make recommendations (ibid: ix). The report refers to the volume of complaints which seemed to be coming from employers about lack of mathematical competence on the part of some school leavers (ibid: 12). To address this, employers views were canvassed. The committee found little real dissatisfaction (ibid: 13) with the mathematical capabilities of school leavers, except in the retail trade and in engineering apprenticeships. The committee went on to analyse the mathematics that was required by industry. Paragraph 458 of the Report (ibid: 135-140), provides a foundation list of mathematical topics to be studied by all pupils, drawing upon this analysis. The following year Blueprint for Numeracy: An Employers Guide to the Cockcroft Report (DES, 1983) was published. This initiative, concerning numeracy, and addressing the needs of industry, may be seen as a forerunner of the present Strategy. Despite the Cockcroft Report and its recommendations, dissatisfaction with mathematics education continued. The results of international surveys continued to indicate that England and Wales were not performing well. The results of SIMS (Second International Mathematics , carried out in 1981) were described as deeply disappointing and disturbing (Howson, 1989: 9) and confirmed other comparative studies (including those of the Assessment of Performance Unit in the UK) (ibid). England was the only country to record lower levels of mathematical attainment in all four divisions of SIMS than in its forerunner, FIMS (First International Mathematics ). The poor English performance was most pronounced on the arithmetic and algebraic items which were particularly weak (ibid: 10): statistical and geometric items were tackled more successfully. It must be noted however, that there are reasons to question the validity and reliability of these results since many of the items did not match the English curriculum well and there were problems with the English sample (ibid). During 1994 and 1995, the Third International Mathematics and Science (TIMSS) collected data from forty five countries on pupil attainment and related background factors, such as home and school experiences in mathematics, and instructional practices (Beaton et al, 1996). One of its main findings was that students in England achieved relatively high mean scores in science and relatively low mean scores in mathematics (Keys et al, 1997: ii) In 1996, the year that TIMSS first reported, the National Numeracy Project (NNP) was launched, initially to support the teaching of numeracy in primary schools (DfEE, 1998a: 12). At the same time several other projects started, with similar aims. These included the Barking and Dagenham Project, The Hamilton Maths Project and The Mathematics Enhancement Programme (ibid). A major part of the work of the NNP was the development of a Framework for teaching. Before the introduction of the Strategy, the National Curriculum set out programmes of study for Key Stages 1 and 2, around which schools planned their own schemes of work. The Framework was designed to supplement these programmes of study, giving teaching objectives for each year and recommending effective teaching methods. This initiative was well received by primary teachers and was acknowledged by the Numeracy Task Force (a body established by the DfEE, chaired by Professor David Reynolds). In its plans for the implementation of the National Numeracy Strategy, the Task Force in turn recommended that the Framework should be available to all primary schools (ibid: 15). 1.3 The National Numeracy Strategy In its final report (ibid: 2), the Numeracy Task Force recommended the implementation of the National Numeracy Strategy, referring specifically to primary, middle and special schools. Among its recommendations were: daily mathematics lessons whole class teaching for a high proportion of each lesson a strong emphasis on oral and mental work the Framework should be sent to every school schools should review current practices against the Framework recommendations staff, including classroom assistants, should be trained for the Strategy numeracy targets should be set for LEAs and schools. The Strategy was implemented in primary schools in September 1999, following a pilot the previous year, and training during the summer term. The central mechanism for this was the Framework for teaching mathematics from Reception to Year 6 (DFEE, 1999), developed from the framework used in the NNP. 1.4 The Key Stage Three Strategy for Mathematics Secondary schools were kept informed of the development of the Strategy through LEA advisory services. LEAs started training secondary mathematics teachers in 2000, using materials published by the DfEE (2000a). This training reviewed the implementation of the Strategy in primary schools, provided information on the pilot in secondary schools and started to prepare the way for the full implementation of the Key Stage 3 Strategy. The pilot began in April 2000 and ran until March 2002 (Ofsted, 2002). Training for selected staff from 205 schools from 17 LEAs started in the summer term of 2000, in preparation for the classroom implementation of the pilot the following September. At the same time, a first draft of the Framework was published for Key Stage 3 (DfEE, 2000b). A revised version (DfEE, 2000c) was made available to pilot schools in September 2000. Outside of the pilot, a number of schools adopted elements of the Framework in their teaching of Key Stage 3 mathematics prior to the full national implementation of the Strategy. Towards the end of 2000 and the beginning of 2001, reports were beginning to appear of the success of the Strategy in primary schools. In his final press conference as Chief inspector of Schools, Chris Woodhead praised the Numeracy Strategy (TES, 2000a). Ofsted inspectors commented on its profound impact on schools (ibid). In the TES (2000b), it was noted that by far the most dramatic improvement has come in primary schools during the past two years. The rise of 13 percentage points in Key Stage Two National Curriculum tests scores since 1988 is undoubtedly due to the new National Numeracy StrategyThe pressure is now on secondary schools to accelerate their more modest rate of improvement". Declarations of the success of the Strategy in primary schools coincided with expressions of discontent about standards in Key Stage 3. These concerns increased in the light of the results of the TIMSS Repeat, a re-run of the survey using the original TIMSS items in 1999 (Ruddock, 2000). The TES reported The Governments standards drive has so far failed to narrow the gap in maths between 14-year-olds in Britain and their counterparts in countries such as Singapore, Hungary, Canada and Russia. Maths skills among English 14-year-olds tested in 1999 have barely changed since the last survey in 1995. However these pupils have not benefited from the Governments Numeracy Strategy (TES, 2000c: 11). The implementation of the Key Stage 3 Strategy was announced early in 2001 (TES, 2001a: 17), before it had been in use in the classroom for a school year, and prior to the formal evaluation of its first year. Even before the announcement, concerns were expressed about the hurry to implement the Strategy (Mathematics Association, 2000; TES, 2001c). I will discuss these concerns in section 3.2. The Key Stage 3 Strategy was presented as an extension of the successful National Numeracy Strategy into the secondary phase. Writing in February 2001, Michael Barber, the head of the DfEEs Standards and Effectiveness Unit, stated: The case for a wide-ranging and ambitious strategy to transform early secondary education is well understood by many heads and teachersWe have to build on the primary achievement and tackle the fresh start attitude and the lack of challenge in year 7 for some pupils (TES, 2001a: 17). He concluded, If all middle and secondary schools adopt the National Strategy with the same alacrity and skill seen in the pilot schools, we have every reason to expect rapid and substantial progress. By 2004, 14-year-olds who have benefited from both the primary and the KS3 programme should be achieving standards far higher than ever before. (ibid: 17). The documentation made available to secondary mathematics teachers in the summer of 2000 prior to the introduction of the Key Stage 3 Strategy (DfEE, 2000a) referred to findings from the research into cross-phase transition and associated challenges. These included: improving the continuity of teaching approaches, both cross-phase and within Key Stage 3 the rejection of a fresh start approach at the beginning of Key Stage 3, which was felt to be an obstacle to progression tackling the drop in both motivation and performance of youngsters in the early part of secondary education described by David Blunkett, the then education minister, in the North of England Education Conference in January 2000 (TES, 2001a: 17). In April 2001, five months before the full implementation of the Key Stage 3 Strategy, the final version of the associated Framework (DfEE, 2001) was published. References to the Framework throughout the remainder of this account refer to this version. CHAPTER TWO THE FRAMEWORK AND THE AIMS AND PEDAGOGY OF THE KEY STAGE 3 STRATEGY FOR MATHEMATICS In the previous chapter, I described the historical background and the political context against which the Key Stage 3 National Strategy for Mathematics was introduced. In this chapter, I will first describe the important role of the Framework in the implementation of the Strategy, then I will summarise the aims, curricular implications and the pedagogy associated with the Strategy. The Framework The importance of the Framework as the main mechanism for implementing the Strategy was demonstrated by the emphasis given to it in the initial training sessions. In his foreword, David Blunkett refers to it as a vital part of a comprehensive support package available to teachers and headteachersThe Framework is proving to be a valuable resource in pilot schools (DfEE, 2001: foreword). The Framework is not statutory: however, schools must justify not using it, by reference to what they are doing(ibid: 2). In other words, a schools practices will be compared with those recommended in the Framework. The Framework is a vital part of the Strategy, setting-out recommended practices for schools (against which they will be judged) and a valuable resource, the most important source of guidance for teachers in preparing for the implementation of the Strategy. In this section I will review the Framework, concentrating in particular on the aims, curricular implications and recommended teaching approaches identified in it. The Key Stage 3 Framework may be seen as the continuation of the principles and approaches of the primary phase Numeracy Strategy Framework (DfEE, 1999: 11) into the next phase of schooling. The format and content of each is similar. There are common themes running through both frameworks. the three part lesson guidance on teaching strategies (with a focus on direct teaching and mental and oral work) a progressive approach to calculation strategies, developing from informal approaches to standard pencil and paper algorithms Similar sections of the Numeracy and the Key Stage 3 Frameworks illustrate the coherence and continuity between the approaches recommended in each. Both frameworks have similar sections on numeracy, (DfEE: 1999: 4 & DfEE, 2001: 9) followed by almost identical sections on approaches to calculation. The section of the Key Stage 3 Framework dealing with Introducing and developing algebra (ibid: 14), draws heavily on the content of the section of the Numeracy Framework entitled Laying the foundations for algebra (DfEE, 1999: 9). Both frameworks have similar sections entitled Teaching strategies (ibid: 11 and DfEE, 2001: 26) and both frameworks deal with teaching-time, direct teaching, typical lessons, homework and out-of-class activities. In addition to the common themes listed above, both frameworks include: details of main learning objectives details of progression through the National Curriculum programmes of study guidance on inclusion and differentiation, assessment and planning teaching programmes comprehensive supplements of examples to support the teaching programmes. (It is worth noting that both the English (DfEE, 2001e) and Literacy (DfEE, 1998c) frameworks are similar in content, though without the supplements of examples.) Inevitably, there are differences between the frameworks, reflecting the differences in curriculum organisation between the two phases and the increasing mathematical maturity of the pupils in Key Stage 3. A change in nomenclature indicates an important shift of emphasis between the two frameworks. Whereas primary schools have a Numeracy Strategy, in Key Stage 3 there is a mathematics component of a Key Stage Strategy. Similar cross-phase distinctions exist for literacy and English. At Key Stage 3, numeracy and literacy are treated as whole-school issues within the frameworks for mathematics and English respectively. At the time of writing, there is no indication that the primary strategies will eventually become Key Stage Strategies. It is possible to draw two inferences from this: the primary curriculum has a specific focus on numeracy and literacy, whereas in Key Stage 3 the programme of study takes into account broader aspects of both mathematics and English. the change of name indicates a progression from the initial concerns of the Strategy in primary schools (improving standards of numeracy and literacy) towards the general management of Key Stage 3 pedagogy. The Key Stage 3 Strategy applies across the whole curriculum, with Science becoming involved from April 2002 and ICT and foundation subjects from September 2002 (Devon Curriculum Services, 2002b). At the launch of the Numeracy Strategy, the primary Framework (DfEE, 1999: 11) identified four underlying principles for numeracy: daily maths lessons direct teaching controlled differentiation mental and oral work. These principles are incorporated within the Key Stage 3 Framework as recommendations concerning teaching strategies (DfEE, 2001: 26). (The first of these principles cannot be applied directly to Key Stage 3 because of the differences between the management of the curriculum in primary and secondary schools. Instead, schools are expected to ensure that there is sufficient timetabled teaching time for mathematics in Key Stage 3(ibid: 26).) Four important principles underlying the Key Stage 3 Strategy are listed in the Framework (ibid: 2). Expectations establishing high expectations for all pupils and setting challenging targets for what they can achieve. Progression strengthening the transition from Key Stage 2 to Key Stage 3 and ensuring progression and continuity in teaching and learning across Key Stage 3. Engagement promoting approaches to teaching and learning that engage and motivate pupils and demand their active participation. Transformation strengthening teaching through a programme of professional development and practical support. In the following section I will examine how the Framework addresses each of these principles. 2.1.1 Expectations High pupil and teacher expectations for achievement are central to the Strategy. This should be manifest in the challenge and pace of lessons and progression through learning objectives. The fundamental mechanism for measuring the success of the Strategy (and hence the governments effectiveness in raising standards) involves target-setting. Following the model of the primary Strategy, the Key Stage 3 Framework refers to ambitious targets (DfEE, 2001: 2). Although these targets are not specified in the Framework itself, they were identified in the draft as 75% at level 5 or above by 2004, rising to 85% by 2007 (DfEE, 2000c). These figures were confirmed in an announcement early in July 2001 (TES, 2001d: 4). (The delay in specifying these targets may have been the result of political expedience; the final version of the Framework was published a few weeks before the June 2001 election, the targets were published a few weeks after the election.). In turn, LEAs are required to set annual targets to contribute to national targets and schools are required to set their own targets to fit in with those of the LEA. Similarly, teachers are expected to use pupils contributions to assess their strengths and difficulties, to set group and individual targets for pupils to achieve and plan the next stage of work (DfEE, 2001: 6). The importance to the Strategy of individual target setting is illustrated by Ofsteds (2002) review of the pilot, which identified this as an area for improvement (ibid: 6, 11 & 16). 2.1.2 Progression The Strategy was launched amid concerns about a lack of continuity and progression from Key Stage 2 into Key Stage 3, as I described in the previous chapter (section 1.4). One concern was that schools were operating a clean sheet approach to the detriment of their pupils (i.e. choosing not to take account of information from primary schools in planning for pupils learning in Year 7): A clean-sheet approach is too slow, and allows pupils to coast or to fall back when they need to be challenged" (DfEE, 2001: 39). The Framework advises Year 7 teachers to survey information about incoming pupils in order to plan work and to derive priorities for the cohort. After a few weeks, teachers are expected to devise more specific targets for their Year 7 pupils. To support continuity in pupils experience of mathematics teaching, the Framework recommends very similar teaching approaches for both Key Stages 2 and 3. To guide mathematics departments as to the how students should progress, the Framework describes the expected progression of middle attainers (ibid: 47) through the Key Stage 3 National Curriculum, using detailed yearly teaching programmes and key objectives for each of years 7, 8 and 9. Further support for planning for progression is provided in the form of supplementary information concerning the key objectives for Years 5 and 6 and extension material for Year 9. The teaching programmes in the Framework are arranged to correspond with National Curriculum levels according to the following pattern (ibid: 4). Table 2.1.2: School Year and National Curriculum Level Year 5Revision of level 3, but mainly level 4Year 6Consolidation of level 4, and start on level 5Year 7Revision of level 4, but mainly level 5Year 8Consolidation of level 5, but start on level 6Year 9Revision of level 5, but mainly level 6; extension objectives at level 7, with some at level 8 Previous versions of the National Curriculum did not attend to yearly programmes of study; this was left to individual schools. The extra guidance provided by the Framework both eases cross-phase transfer between schools and helps departments to build in consistency and progression within Key Stage 3. (This may be seen as reducing the autonomy of individual teachers and departments and as a move towards prescription and central control of the curriculum. (I will deal with this in greater depth in section 2.2.2.) 2.1.3 Engagement Teachers are responsible for establishing high expectations of pupils and coherence of the teaching programme. However, it is the pupils who learn. The engagement and motivation of pupils in their learning of mathematics is a fundamental element in this process. The teaching approaches recommended by the Framework to promote pupils active engagement are summarised as: a high proportion of direct, interactive teaching; engagement by all pupils in tasks and activities which, even when differentiated, relate to a common theme; regular opportunities to develop oral, mental and visualisation skills. (DfEE, 2001: 26). These recommended teaching approaches also underlie the National Numeracy Strategy in primary schools (DfEE, 1999: 11 and Thompson, 2000: 23), and may be interpreted by some as indicative of an intention to establish a uniform and coherent approach to teaching mathematics across Key Stages 1, 2 and 3. The Framework recommends a particular structure for mathematics lessons: the three-part lesson (DfEE, 2001: 28). These lessons have a clear beginning (an oral and mental starter), a clear middle (the main teaching activity) and a clear end, (a plenary). This structure allows teachers to prepare pupils for the intended learning outcome, to teach them and finally, to review their learning. The three-part lesson is described in more detail later in this chapter, in section 2.4.4. 2.1.4 Transformation The Framework uses the term transformation to describe the process of strengthening teaching and learning through professional development and practical support for teachers. This programme of professional development and practical support is being managed by LEAs. LEAs also manage the allocation to schools of their share of 82 million of Standards Funding for the introduction of the Strategy into Key Stage 3 (TES, 2001a). INSET funding for staff training was also devolved from the LEAs to schools. In addition to this, LEAs were required to identify those schools in their areas that would benefit from extra support. These support schools received money for additional training (Devon Curriculum Services, 2002a). This money was spent on a programme of conferences, supply cover to allow internal INSET and support from Numeracy Consultants (specially appointed to provide the practical support referred to above). The INSET provided by LEAs (ibid) initially concentrated on: introducing the Strategy to mathematics departments helping inexperienced or non-specialist teachers to adapt their teaching approaches to reflect those recommended in the Framework assisting teachers in planning lessons within the format offered by the Framework preparing those students who had failed to meet the expected level of attainment at the end of Key Stage 2 for progress tests at the end of Year7. 2.2 The Aims of the Strategy The introduction to the Framework refers to the challenge of building on the success of the Strategy in Key Stages 1 and 2. The National Strategy for Key Stage 3 aims to address this challenge, drawing on the best practice in secondary schools, experience in the 205 schools that have piloted developments in Key Stage 3, and findings from inspection and research about what helps to raise standards (DfEE, 2001: 2). In its evaluation of the pilot of the Key Stage 3 Strategy, Ofsted described the following as its aims: To raise standards by strengthening teaching and learning, developing cross-curricular skills such as literacy and numeracy and helping pupils who come into Year 7 below level 4 to make faster progress. (Ofsted, 2002:1) In this section, I will explore the aims underlying the introduction of this initiative. To do this I will use Government statements and documentation associated with the introduction of the Strategy as well as contemporary media accounts. (As I explained in chapter one (section 1.2), the Government has a vested interest in the success of the Strategy. To this end, media accounts are useful, since they provide an indication of the social and political climate in which the Government launched the Strategy.) In March 2001, the Governments Standards and Effectiveness Unit offered the following checklist to describe the Key Stage 3 Strategy: It is not: complete change tinkering at the margins boring, reductive and out-of-context basic skills just like primary just about targets just about level 3s just about Year 7 It is: for all pupils, including the gifted; direct action for under-achievers; leading-edge training; effective consultancy support; networking and dissemination of good practice active and engaging lessons a strategy for the long-term. (TES, 2001b: 19). The same checklist was used at Key Stage 3 Strategy launch conferences in May 2001 (DCA, 2001) and offers a useful insight into the aims underlying the implementation of the Strategy. The first section of this checklist (detailing what the Strategy is not about) addresses important concerns. The terms numeracy and literacy (central to the primary Strategy) are not used. This is a reflection of the broader curricular ambitions of the Strategy in Key Stage 3. This is reinforced by clarifying the differences between the two Strategies (it is not just like primary). Care is taken not to portray the Strategy as a traditional, back-to-basics initiative, emphasising that it does not advocate a return to boring, reductive or out of context approaches to basic mathematical skills. The final three points in the first section of this checklist implicitly acknowledge the importance of targets and boosting attainment in Year 7. However, this statement makes it clear that the Strategy is about more than targets and attainment. The second section of the checklist describes how the Strategy will operate. The aims of the Strategy highlighted by this checklist are: addressing low attainment promotion of active and engaging lessons and the provision of a structure for training and support for teachers. These correspond respectively to the principles of expectation, engagement and transformation emphasised in the Framework (DfEE, 2001: 2). 2.2.1 Raising standards In chapter one (sections 1.1 & 1.2), I described the history of public concern about standards in mathematics. The issue of raising standards was an important political consideration in the implementation of the Strategy and, as the quotations at the beginning of this section indicate, is a major aim of the Strategy. The first section of the Framework to make general recommendations about leadership, management, planning, teaching and assessment (setting the rest of the document in context) is entitled Raising Standards (DfEE, 2001: 6). Although there is no explicit reference to raising standards in the checklist, there is a reference to the importance of setting targets: the Strategy is not just about targets (TES, 2001b: 19). The Strategy may not be solely concerned with targets, however, targets and target-setting are important aspects of the Strategy and provide mechanisms for measuring standards. As I noted in the introduction, the Government has set ambitious targets for the Key Stage 3 tests in 2004 and 2007 (DfEE, 2001: 2). The Governments performance will be judged against these targets. (David Blunkett, the Secretary of State for Education when the Strategy was launched, was prepared to resign if the Strategys targets were not met (Carvell, 1999). It has been suggested (TES; 2002a) that the resignation of his successor (Estelle Morris) in October 2002 was due, in part, to the failure to meet Key Stage 2 targets for that year.) Raised standards can be interpreted in different ways; it may refer to raised standards for all, or it may refer to raised standards for a particular subgroup of the population. The target for Key Stage 3 mathematics can be met by raising the attainment of a minority of pupils. To increase the percentage of pupils attaining level 5 from 65% to 75%, it is sufficient that an additional 10% of the cohort attains this level in National Curriculum tests. In preparation for the 2002 Key Stage 3 tests, the Government has made 4500 available to every secondary school for booster classes (DfES, 2002b), a 12 lesson, centrally-prepared programme of revision lessons, directly targeted at pupils who are judged to be capable of attaining level 5 with additional support. The schools were given clear instructions only to target borderliners (those pupils between levels 4 and 5) (ibid). It appears that the Governments priority is to meet (or exceed) its numerical target, rather than attend to the needs of all those pupils whose attainment is below level 5. The success of the Strategy will be measured against KS3 targets for 2004 and 2007, however the achievement of the Governments targets does not imply raised standards of attainment for all. I will return to this point when I deal with critiques of the Strategy in Chapter 3 (section 3.3). 2.2.2 Greater Central Control of the Curriculum and Pedagogy Target-setting, more detailed annual programmes of study for the National Curriculum, intensive training programmes and the requirement that schools justify their practices by comparison with those recommended by the Framework indicate the Governments intention of imposing greater uniformity on the mathematics curriculum and pedagogy. As I noted in section 2.1.2, this appears to be a major aim of the Strategy, although I am unable to find any explicit reference to this in any of the documentation. At one level, this may be viewed as ensuring that the National Curriculum operates consistently and cohesively across the country. At another level, it may be viewed as a move to exercise central control over mathematics teaching nationally. The change from primary Numeracy and Literacy Strategies to the secondary Key Stage Strategy, with its generic principles, is indicative of an intention to address all teaching at Key Stage 3. 2.2.3 Summary: the Aims of the Strategy The main aim of the Key Stage 3 Strategy is to raise standards of attainment in mathematics. This is to be achieved by tighter management of the curriculum and the associated pedagogy. The Framework (DfEE, 2001: 2) describes the mechanisms put in place to do this: Promoting progression and continuity in the curriculum. The Framework gives a Key Stage 3 programme of study for median attainers in mathematics, which attends to issues of progression and cross-phase continuity. It also gives advice on how this programme may be adapted for higher and lower attainers. Thus, the DfES is able to control curriculum content and rates of progression through the curriculum on a national basis. The adoption of the optional tests at the end of Years 7 and 8 will promote national standardisation of the curriculum. Developing effective and engaging teaching approaches The Framework recommends particular approaches to teaching (which I will discuss in detail in section 2.4). In addition to specifying general teaching strategies, the Framework gives guidance on approaches to teaching particular elements of the curriculum (e.g. calculation, proportional reasoning, algebraic manipulation, geometric reasoning etc.). Training sessions supporting the introduction of the Strategy addressed these curricular approaches (DfES, 2001 & DfES, 2002). Setting challenging expectations In addition to providing a model for progression through the National Curriculum in mathematics, the Key Stage 3 Strategy involves setting progressive attainment targets for the national cohort, schools and individual pupils. The catch-up programme in Year 7 offers targeted support to help pupils who did not reach the expected standard at the end of Key Stage 2. Training and supporting teachers in developing effective teaching approaches. The Government has made available large sums of money to enable training for the Key Stage 3 Strategy. This training has concentrated on the curricular and pedagogical approaches espoused by Strategy. In addition, funding has been made available to support cross-phase liaison, to provide consultancy and to allow developmental work to take place within mathematics departments. In brief, the aim of the Strategy is to raise standards of attainment and ensure a consistency of provision through: establishing a programme of study for the Key Stage 3 National Curriculum for mathematics; advising how to address particular areas of the curriculum the adoption of direct interactive teaching as the standard teaching approach control and monitoring of progress through the National Curriculum through the use of target-setting training teachers to implement the Strategy 2.3 The Curricular Implications of the Strategy In this section, I will address both the structure of the Strategys programmes of study and the main features of the National Curriculum attainment targets algebra, handling data and using and applying mathematics as they are approached in the Strategy. 2.3.1 Curriculum Organisation As I noted in section 2.1.2, the yearly teaching programmes for Key Stage 3 are related to National Curriculum levels as indicated in table 2.1.2. This approach to the curriculum (prescribing that a years learning programme should draw its content from one or two specific National Curriculum levels) may be termed levelness. This is a new approach to the content of the National Curriculum. The non-statutory guidance to the 1991 version of the National Curriculum (DES, 1991: B2) states: Pupils both individually and collectively will progress through the levels of the various aspects of the programmes of study at different rates. Planning based on work at a single level across all the programmes of study should be avoided (my italics). In the next chapter (section 3.3), I will argue that levelness encourages a stricter hierarchical approach to teaching and learning than hitherto. For some schools, this level-by-level approach will necessitate a change in the way programmes of study and schemes of work are organised. Target-setting, with its focus on National Curriculum levels, will require schools to pay particular attention to the expected outcomes of the programme of study. The Framework recommends differentiation through offering programmes of study based on the objectives for either older or younger pupils. In discussing setting, the Framework recommends that higher sets may work on a programme for an older age grouplower sets may need to work mainly from objectives in the teaching programmes for a younger age group, while keeping in mind the objectives for the appropriate year (DfEE, 2001: 32). The management of mixed ability classes through tasks set at three levels is also discussed (ibid: 33). Nowhere does the Framework indicate a preference for either setting or mixed-ability teaching. However, there is a strong recommendation that all pupils work together through the planned programme for their class (ibid: 28). As I will discuss in the following chapter (section 3.4), this may raise problems for the students at each end of the attainment range. In the section of the Framework devoted to Inclusion and Differentiation (ibid: 32), organisational approaches are proposed for accommodating a wide range of pupils needs. It deals with special needs (including pupils with disabilities, able pupils, pupils with English as a second language etc.), with an emphasis on the benefits to be gained from pupils working actively together through an inclusive programme. It addresses the use of teaching assistants to support particular pupils with special needs. Prior to the implementation of the Key Stage 3 Strategy, how (and whether) teaching assistants were used to provide learning support was at the discretion of each school. Part of the funding made available to schools for the implementation of the Strategy was earmarked for providing teaching assistants. The Framework describes their main role as helping pupils to participate independently in maths lessons (ibid). Teaching assistants are recommended to support these pupils discretely in the interactive parts of lessons and work with them directly during activities and written tasks. To achieve this, support staff should have copies of the Framework and should be involved in planning and departmental meetings. As in the primary Framework, schools are required to target support for pupils who need to catch up (ibid: p34). In Key Stage 3, these are pupils who failed to attain level 4 at the end of Key Stage 2, but who have been identified as having a realistic chance of attaining this level with extra support in Year 7. Schools are expected to enter these pupils for progress tests in the spring of Year 7. Springboard 7 materials have been prepared to support this initiative and funding has been provided for the deployment of classroom assistants to work with these pupils. Schools have to choose the most suitable form of teaching provision to make for these pupils in their schools (e.g. extra teaching groups, extra classroom support, extra lessons etc.). In addition, optional tests (aimed at the whole attainment range of both Years 7 and 8) are available in the summer term to assess pupils attainment within the National Curriculum (DfES, 2002c). Effectively, National Curriculum tests now exist for every year in Key Stage 3 (although only the end of Key Stage tests are mandatory). 2.3.2 Curriculum Content In reviewing the Strategys approach to curricular content, I will concentrate initially on numeracy, since approaches to this aspect of mathematics are common to both frameworks and have implications across the breadth of the Key Stage 3 curriculum. Subsequently, I will outline the main features of the National Curriculum attainment targets algebra, shape, space and measures, handling data and using and applying mathematics as they are approached in the Strategy. 2.3.3 Numeracy The approaches to calculation recommended in the National Numeracy Strategy (in Key Stage 2) reflect the research into numeracy that preceded its introduction. Younger pupils are encouraged to develop number sense (Anghileri, 2001), exploiting their familiarity with numbers, their properties and relationships in order to develop flexibility in their approaches to solving number problems. As in Holland (Beishuizen, 1997), the teaching of standard pencil and paper methods is delayed (in the case of the UK, until Year 4). However, making informal pencil and paper notes and personal jottings is seen as a staging post to acquiring fluency in mental calculation (DfEE, 1998b: 52). The final report of the Numeracy Task Force states: Standard written methods offer reliable and efficient proceduresThey are of no use, however, to someone who applies them inaccurately, and who cannot judge whether the answer is reasonablethe progression towards these methods is crucial. (ibid: p52). This is developed in the Key Stage 3 Framework: Many countries, and in particular those which are most successful at teaching number, avoid the premature teaching of standard written methods in order not to jeopardise the development of mental calculation strategies. The bridge from recording part-written, part-mental methods to learning standard methods of written calculations begins only when pupils can add or subtract reliably any pair of two-digit numbers in their heads, usually when they are about nine years old. Standard methods for addition and subtraction should be well established by Year 6 for nearly all pupils and will be used in Key Stage 3 with an increasing range of numbers and decimals. But multiplication and division methods will need to be developed further.(DfEE, 2001: 11). Although the Key Stage 3 Strategy takes a broader view of mathematics than its primary counterpart, great emphasis is still placed on calculation and numeracy. There are sections of the Framework devoted to Numeracy and Mathematics, Number: from Key Stage 2 to Key Stage 3 and Mathematics across the curriculum. The approaches to calculation are a continuation of those used in the earlier phase and are consistent with them. The conference manual for heads of department training in the summer of 2000 (DfEE, 2000a) gives comprehensive coverage of the developmental approaches to calculation espoused by the strategy. By Key Stage 3, most pupils are expected to have established the standard written methods for addition and subtraction (DfEE, 2001: 11), however multiplication and division methods are expected to require further development. The aim is that where appropriate to do so all pupils will use standard written methods efficiently and accurately, and with understanding (ibid: 11). The Strategy takes account of the division of the Key Stage 3 curriculum into subject areas by emphasising the importance of mathematics across the curriculum. (This was the subject of a days whole school INSET for all secondary schools in the spring term 2002.) Heads of department are described as being generally responsible for numeracy across the curriculum (ibid: 7). This involves working with other departments and areas of the school to share approaches to developing numeracy skills (including the use of resources such as ICT, calculators, etc.). It also involves liaison with other departments to support teaching and learning in other subject areas. To support this, the DfES produced materials for the training day, which focussed on the mathematical content of the Key Stage 3 programmes of study for different subjects (DfES, 2001b). The coordination of teaching programmes is recommended, so that pupils may be introduced to the areas of mathematics required by other subjects in mathematics first (DfEE, 2001: 23), and to help each department identify its contribution to the teaching of numeracy skills (ibid: 9). 2.3.4 The National Curriculum Attainment Targets I will briefly examine the main features of the Strategys approach to each of the National Curriculum attainment targets at Key Stage 3. As I will demonstrate, forms of representation and the development of reasoning and deductive skills are common themes throughout all four attainment targets. Algebra The Framework approaches algebra as generalised arithmetic (DfEE, 2001: 14), with a focus on developing algebraic reasoning. Emphasis is placed on: generalisations from particular cases the construction and transformation of algebraic expressions the representation of problems and their solutions the development of algebraic reasoning which will eventually lead to more rigorous approaches to proof. (ibid: 15). Shape, Space and Measures There is a focus on geometric reasoning (ibid: 16). The Framework emphasises the following approaches: the development of geometrical reasoning and deduction the development of dynamic, spatial awareness and construction skills awareness of degrees of accuracy of measurements (ibid: 17) Handling Data There is a focus on making inferences from meaningful data. The Framework emphasises the following approaches: purposeful enquiry, looking at relevant problems using appropriate samples to make inferences the use of ICT for processing data and for simulation (ibid: 19) Using and Applying Mathematics The Strategy emphasises the importance of developing problem-solving approaches through analytical reasoning and interpretation of data. The particular skills highlighted are: information processing skills enquiry skills thinking skills reasoning skills evaluation skills (ibid: 20-22) The broad themes running across the various mathematical strands of the Key Stage 3 Strategy are: the further development of the progressive approach to calculation first developed in the primary Strategy, leading from mental methods and informal jottings towards standard written algorithms in Key Stage 3 an emphasis on reasoning, proof and justification across all of the mathematics attainment targets of the National Curriculum the development of different forms of representations and imagery (mental, on paper and using ICT) the development of strategies and mathematical skills for problem-solving 2.3.5 Summary: The Curricular Implications of the Key Stage 3 Strategy The programmes of study reflect National Curriculum levels, so that teaching programmes progress on a level-by-level basis. Key objectives are identified for each year, creating a much more prescriptive programme of study than that offered previously by the National Curriculum. This prescription is reinforced by the establishment of targets for the end of Key Stage tests and the introduction of progress and optional tests. The importance of providing differentiated learning experiences is emphasised, however no preference is expressed for either setted or mixed-ability teaching. The Key Stage 3 Strategy continues the approaches to calculation implemented in Key Stage 2 and develops them, leading up to the use of standard algorithms. The Key Stage 3 Strategy addresses the issue of numeracy across the curriculum and the need for schools to establish mechanisms to promote effective teaching, learning and application of mathematics across all subject areas. In the approach it adopts to the content of the National Curriculum, the Strategy places particular emphasis on: representation proof problem-solving and the use of ICT 7 The Framework recommends the use of teaching assistants to support particular pupils needing special help to participate fully in lessons. 2.4 The Pedagogy of the Strategy One the two aims of this research project is to explore pupils perceptions of teachers classroom practice before and after the implementation of the Key Stage 3 Strategy. (The other aim is to explore how the implementation of the Strategy has affected pupils attitudes.) In this section, I will attempt to give a comprehensive account of the pedagogical recommendations of the Strategy. I will refer to these specific approaches to teaching in gathering the data for my research. I will leave consideration of the evidence supporting the adoption of these approaches until the next chapter (section 3.5 & 3.6) where I will also address critiques of these approaches. 2.4.1 Direct Interactive Teaching The approach to teaching recommended in the Framework is direct teaching (DfEE, 2001: 26), sometimes referred to as direct, interactive teaching. This involves working with the whole of the class for a high proportion of the lesson, the lively participation of the pupils and an emphasis on mental and oral mathematics. It should be oral, interactive and livelyIt is a two-way process in which pupils are expected to play an active part. (ibid: 26). These approaches are justified by reference to Ofsted findings and school improvement research (ibid: 6). Some commentators challenge the robustness of the empirical evidence underpinning these approaches; I will review this evidence in the next chapter (section 3.5, p56). The Framework recommends a balance of the following strategies for good direct teaching (ibid: 26). Directing and telling. Making teaching objectives explicit to the class, highlighting particular issues. Demonstrating and modelling Describing aspects of mathematics and showing pupils how to approach mathematical tasks using appropriate resources. Explaining and illustrating With an emphasis on accuracy, pace and context. Questioning and discussing Using appropriate questioning strategies to involve all pupils in class discussions, using pupils responses to promote greater understanding. Exploring and investigating Encouraging pupils to pursue their own lines of enquiry, to look for generalisations or counter-examples and to consider different forms of representation. Consolidating and embedding Practising, reinforcing, developing and extending what has been taught. Reflecting and evaluating Reviewing pupils work offering feedback and asking pupils to justify their methods and identify mistakes and misconceptions. Summarising and reminding Reviewing what has been taught and what has been learnt, at (or towards) the end of the lesson. Identifying and rectifying misconceptions, highlighting key points and considering how ideas may be developed. 2.4.2 The Three Part lesson In addition to approaches to teaching, the Framework also recommends a particular lesson structure: the three-part lesson. This is described as a beginning, a middle and an end, in which you explain to pupils and prepare them for what they are to learn, teach it to them, then help them to recognise what they have achieved (DfEE, 2001: 28). This structure may be summarised as: An oral and mental starter whole-class work to rehearse, sharpen and develop mental skills. The main teaching activity direct interactive teaching involving teaching input and pupil activities: work may be for the whole-class, groups, pairs or individuals. A plenary whole-class work summarising key ideas, identifying progress, resolving misconceptions and exploring contexts for development. (ibid, p28). It is acknowledged that this format will not be suitable for all lessons. For example, in some lessons it may be more appropriate to have a plenary in the middle of the lesson and mental and oral work at the end. However, each lesson is expected to include direct, interactive teaching and pupil activities. Although the time spent on whole-class work may vary from lesson to lesson, it is expected to constitute a high proportion of overall lesson-time. 2.4.3 A Typical Mathematics Lesson Here I will attempt to identify the expected features of a typical lesson within the Strategy. The Framework states: Where teaching is concerned, better standards of mathematics occur when: lessons have clear objectives and are suitably paced; teachers convey to pupils an interest in and enthusiasm for mathematics; a high proportion of lesson time is devoted to a combination of demonstration, illustration, instruction and dialogue, suited to the lessons objectives; pupils are involved and their interest maintained through suitably demanding and varied work, including non-routine problems that require them to think for themselves; regular oral and mental work develops and secures pupils recall skills and mental strategies, and their visualisation, thinking and communication skills; there is whole-class discussion in which teachers question pupils effectively, give them time to think, expect them to demonstrate and explain their reasoning, and explore reasons for any wrong answers; pupils are expected to use correct mathematical terms and notation and to talk about their insights rather than give single word answers; written activities consolidate the teaching and are supported by judicious use of information and communication technology (ICT), textbooks and other resources; teachers make explicit for pupils the links between different topics in mathematics and between mathematics and other subjects; manageable differentiation is based on work common to all pupils in a class, with targeted support to help those who have difficulties to develop their mathematics. (DfEE, 2001: 6) This list was published after I had collected data from the first population of pupils, and was unavailable to me at the time of devising my questionnaire. (To enable me to make comparisons, I collected the first set of data prior to the implementation of the Strategy). However, to help me formulate my research items, I was able to use the following checklist, from a DfEE training package for secondary schools (DfEE, 2000a: 57). This is detailed below (my italics). Oral and mental starter to rehearse and sharpen skills Main teaching and pupil activities clear objectives shared with pupils direct teaching input participative style practical and/or written work for pupils on the same theme for all the class if group work, usually differentiated at no more than 3 levels, with focused teaching of 1 or 2 groups for part of the time misconceptions identified Plenary feedback from children to identify progress and sort misconceptions summary of key ideas, what to remember links made to other work, next steps, work set to do at home (DfEE, 2000a: 57) In addition to these descriptors, I have added two more of my own to reflect the recommendations of the Strategy: a clear end to the three-part lesson and a strong emphasis on mental and oral mathematics throughout lessons as a whole, not just within the starter. These descriptors cover the characteristics of direct interactive teaching, the three-part lesson and the teaching approaches recommended by the Strategy as described above. I used these descriptors in my research as a check-list of the teaching approaches recommended in the documentation of the Strategy, at the time the research project began. Although the Framework was published after my project had begun, each of these categories is still relevant to the Strategy as it has been implemented. Each of the teaching approaches recommended for the Strategy can be classified within these categories. 2.4.4 Special Needs in Mathematics The Framework recommends general approaches to teaching pupils with special needs: aim to include all pupils fully in mathematics lessons so that they benefit from the oral and mental work and take part in watching and listening to other pupils demonstrating their methods and solutionsKeep these objectives in mind when you plan, so that you can address special needs through simplified or modified tasks and the use of support staff to consolidate key points. (DfEE, 2001: 36). In other words, pupils with special needs should be treated in such a way as to include them, as far as possible (ibid: 32) in the planned programme for the whole class. In a similar manner, teaching assistants are expected to help pupils with special needs participate, as independently as possible (ibid: 37), in the work of the whole class. In providing this support they should prompt, question, explain, look out for difficulties and misunderstandings and monitor progress; much as a teacher is expected to do with the whole class. To summarise, in its approach to pupils with special needs, the Strategy offers enabling mechanisms to promote participation in direct, interactive lessons, consistent with the approaches to teaching described above. 2.4.5 Summary: the Pedagogy of the Strategy The Framework recommends that teaching should be direct and interactive within the format of a three-part lesson. The main characteristics of the teaching approaches recommended by the Framework can be summarised as: Mental and oral starters Making objectives for the lesson clear Direct teaching Having a common theme for all pupils Use of group work Identifying and addressing misconceptions Giving feedback, reviewing Summarising Making links with other learning and subjects A clear end to the lesson An emphasis on mental / oral maths I have used these categories in designing the questionnaire used in this research project. I will describe the process by which the questionnaire was devised in detail in Chapter 5 (sections 5.9 & 5.10). CHAPTER THREE A CRITICAL REVIEW OF THE STRATEGY The Strategy was developed in a climate of concern about poor standards of numeracy and mathematics in England and Wales (see section 1.2). The central aim of the Strategy is to raise standards by a tighter control of the curriculum and teaching approaches (see section 2.2). The Key Stage 3 (KS3) Strategy for mathematics evolved directly from the National Numeracy Project (NNP) and the National Numeracy Strategy (NNS), both of which addressed numeracy in primary schools. Since the KS3 Strategy is still in its infancy, I have drawn on accounts of both of these earlier initiatives (and the KS3 pilot) to illustrate issues arising from the implementation of the KS3 Strategy. I will also consider more general issues which are relevant to the Strategy. I will then review the literature and the body of empirical evidence concerning the Strategy, with a particular focus on my two research areas (how the Strategy affects pupils attitudes and the teaching approaches experienced by the pupils). Theoretical and Empirical Evidence Underpinning the Strategy To measure the effectiveness of the NNP, the QCA (Qualifications and Curriculum Authority) devised age-standardised numeracy tests, consisting of mental and written components, for schools in the pilot. As schools became involved in the pilot, their pupils (more than 23 000 overall) were tested. There were significant gains in the mean of the age-standardised scores when the pupils were re-tested after one and two years. The greatest gains were observed amongst those whose attainment had been lowest in the initial tests (DfEE, 1998b: 12). These improvements in performance (especially amongst the lower attainers) were seen as evidence of the success of the approaches recommended in the Framework of the NNP and were a contributory factor in the adoption of the Framework nationally. The preliminary report of the Numeracy Task Force, which prepared the ground for the introduction of the NNS, stated that it deliberately set out to be evidence-based rather than adopt any particular faiths about numeracy (DfEE, 1998a). The introduction to the Key Stage 3 Framework states that the Strategy draws on the best practice in secondary schools, experience in the 205 schools that have piloted developments in Key Stage 3, and findings from inspection and research about what helps to raise standards (DfEE, 2001: 2). A similar justification is made for the factors identified as leading to higher standards (ibid: 6). However, I have been unable to identify from the documentation how specific aspects of the Strategy relate to research evidence. Commenting on National Numeracy Strategy training sessions, Brown made a similar observation. She noted that when teachers challenged any of the central tenets of the Strategy (such as direct whole-class teaching), the answer given was research has shown that this works. But has it? Or is it just a predilection of the Chief Inspector, who initiated the National Numeracy and Literacy Projects and remains a key adviser for Ministers, but who has frequently expressed his disdain for educational research? (Brown, 1999: 5). An earlier critique (Brown et al, 1998), published just after the announcement of the introduction of the National Numeracy Strategy in primary schools, identifies the difficulties in drawing consistent and unambiguous conclusions from the data. In most cases the literature reveals that school, teachers, teaching organisation and teaching methods have a relatively small effect on numeracy attainmentThe complexity of the findings and of the possible interpretations suggests that ministerial desires for simply telling what works are unrealistic (Brown et al, 1998: 378). Golding (2001) also comments on the problems of identifying how the Strategy is supported by research evidence. He writes that: the report Effective Teachers of Numeracy and the SCAA document Teaching and Assessment of Number at Key Stages 1-3 both draw on substantial quoted research, although the first draft of the National Numeracy Project is less explicit about the research on which it is based. Numeracy Matters, the preliminary report of the Numeracy Task Force, depends heavily on the evidence and recommendations of these three reports, although there are certain aspects of the NNS for which I have been unable to locate direct evidence.(ibid). It should be noted, however, that an annotated bibliography (Reynolds & Muijs, 1998), reviewing relevant research, was published to accompany the two reports from the Numeracy Task Force. Commentators question the empirical evidence for the prescriptive nature of the teaching approaches recommended by the Strategy. Thompson (2000) asserts that the approach to mental calculation adopted by the framework is only supported by research up to the end of Key Stage 1. He suggests that different strategies need to be emphasised and developed (ibid: 26) for Key Stage 2 and beyond. Costello (2000) notes that research for the Cockcroft Report (Cockcroft, 1982: 3) concluded that disparate learning objectives could not all be served by any one teaching approach or any single style of classroom management. Tikly (2000) makes a similar criticism, the complexity of learning mathematics implies a flexible choice of pedagogies, rather than a standard set of teaching methods (ibid, p24). The identification of good practice was one of the key principles underpinning the development of the Strategy. We have attempted to learn not only from this country, but from achievements (and mistakes) in other countries, aiming for a blend of practice from this country and abroad that will improve standards in mathematics. (DfEE, 1998b: 7). The poor performance of English pupils in international mathematics surveys (Brown et al, 1998: 365) has focussed much attention on the teaching of mathematics in such parts of the world as Hungary, Japan, and the Pacific Rim states. The direct, interactive approach to mathematics teaching used in Hungary had a strong influence on the NNP (Andrews, 1997: 14). However, it should be noted that Hungarian culture, and Hungarian social attitudes to education, are different from those in England (ibid: 16). Aware of the social and cultural differences between England and Hungary, Calder (2000) warns against the wholesale adoption of the teaching strategies used in Hungary. Despite the fact that Japan and the Pacific Rim states fare well in international mathematics surveys (Beaton et al, 1996: 2), it does not necessarily follow that their teaching approaches should be adopted in England. It is unreasonable to assume that the educational culture in these countries is sufficiently similar to that in England. What works in one society will not necessarily work in another. Brown et al (1998) however, are not too pessimistic about English pupils mathematical abilities. They concede that, in international surveys, English pupils scores were generally below average on pencil-and-paper tests, however they note that they were consistently amongst the highest performers on practical and problem-solving tasks. They conclude Thus the answer to whether there is a real numeracy problem depends on the relative weighting put on problem-solving, and on more conventional classroom pencil and paper arithmetic. (ibid: 365). 3.2 The Introduction of the Strategy The NNP began in 1996 and resulted in the introduction of the primary Strategy in 1999. The pilot for the KS3 Strategy, involving 205 secondary schools distributed throughout 17 LEAs, started in April 2000 and ended in March 2002 (Ofsted, 2002: 1). Positive reports about the success of the Strategy in primary schools began to appear at the end of 2000. These reports were accompanied by expressions of discontent about standards in KS3, as I described in the first chapter (TES, 2000a; TES, 2000b; TES, 2000c). Concerns about standards in KS3 were compounded by the publication of the results of the TIMSS Repeat (Ruddock, 2000) which, once again, showed comparatively poor performance by English pupils. The Government announced the full implementation of the KS3 Strategy early in 2001 (TES, 2001a: 17), to take effect in schools from the following September. The decision to implement the strategy was made before the pilot had been in use in the classroom for a school year, and a year before the publication of the formal evaluation by Ofsted (2002) in February 2002. The evaluation records that, in the implementation of the pilot, problems arose from the lack of adequate preparation time and the late arrival of documentation (ibid: 5, 7, 17). As I noted in the first chapter, the Governments apparent hurry to implement the KS3 Strategy caused concern. In its response to the draft proposals, the Mathematics Association (2000) noted It is a matter of considerable concern that the extension of the National Numeracy Strategy to Key Stage 3 is proceeding far too hurriedly with insufficient time being allowed for adequate development of a coherent programmeIt is a pity that some of the lessons arising from three revisions of the National Curriculum for mathematics over a ten year period have not yet been learned. (ibid: 4). The TES (2001c: 10) observed that the initiative may have been rushed. In the same article, the TES quotes Margaret Brown of Kings College, London: It may have been helpful to allow the pilots to run for another year, but we are working to the politicians timetable. (ibid: 10). It is worth noting that the Government has set ambitious targets (DfEE, 2001: 2) for the end of KS3 tests in 2004 and 2007. The importance the Government attaches to meeting its targets is illustrated by the education secretarys threat to resign if the targets are not met (Carvell, 1999). The first cohort of pupils for whom the 2004 target will apply starts Year 7 in September 2001. This may explain the Governments apparent hurry to implement the Strategy in KS3. 3.3 Levelness The use of levels of attainment to describe progress through the National Curriculum is an important component of the Strategy. In Chapter 2, (section 2.1.2) I described how National Curriculum levels determine the programme of study set out in the Framework. The Governments targets are also expressed in terms of levels. In this section, I will explore some of the issues arising as a consequence of the importance of levels to the Strategy. Levels of Attainment were adopted when the first version of the National Curriculum was introduced in March 1989 (DES, 1989) and were based on the model devised by the Task Group on Assessment and Testing (TGAT, 1988). This group was established by Kenneth Baker (the Education Secretary at the time) to give advice on assessment within the National Curriculum (Howson, 1989). In this model, ten hierarchical levels were used to describe progress through each attainment target, for each National Curriculum subject. The model relates age and attainment at GCSE and is illustrated in figure 3.3 below. In neither the National Curriculum, nor the TGAT report can I find a rationale for the TGAT model, aside from a brief reference to GCSE grades (ibid: paras 96-110) and the acknowledgement of Cockcrofts description of a seven year gap in attainment at age eleven (Cockcroft, 1982, para 342: 100). Figure 3.3 (from Howson, 1989)) Implicitly, the TGAT model suggests that pupils will make linear progress through the levels, in all subjects. Howson (1989) writes It is making a disciplinary-free statement and assumes that all disciplines will be learned in the same hierarchical way; a very questionable assumption indeed. The curriculum, then, is not to be geared to age or ability our children are to be treated like trams, and will follow the same tracks according to their rate of learning. (ibid: 22-23). Revisions and new interpretations of the National Curriculum, culminating in the Strategy, have removed some of the concerns expressed by Howson. In particular, the Strategys adoption of levelness (the concentration on one or two levels of attainment for each school year) has addressed the need to relate the curriculum to pupils ages. However, the implicit assumption remains; that all students will make linear progress through these levels of attainment. In the previous chapter (section 2.3.1), I described how the yearly teaching programmes were based on content drawn from just one or two levels of attainment from the National curriculum. I also noted that this is a change in approach from that recommended in earlier versions of the National Curriculum. I have not been able to find any documentation of the Strategy citing theoretical or empirical evidence for this change of approach. The Strategy may be viewed by critics as adopting a neo-behaviourist position, that mathematics learning progresses through fixed hierarchies of performance capabilities. Thus, it could be argued that the Strategy is more concerned with identifying features of the mathematics to be learned rather than with identifying the needs of learners. In this interpretation, the Strategys focus on misconceptions can then be seen as correcting the mathematical error (outcome-related and neo-behaviourist) rather than as a means of accommodating concepts through cognitive conflict (constructivist). The Frameworks level-by-level progression through yearly teaching programmes lends itself to whole-class teaching approaches through uniformity of mathematical content. Inevitably, it will have an impact on those students for whom the prescribed programme of study is inappropriate (despite the approaches to special needs and differentiation recommended in the Strategy, which I discuss below). National Curriculum levels have their origins in the TGAT model, yet the TGAT model itself assumes that the spread of attainment across a cohort widens with age. If this is so, then the success of a rigidly defined programme of study in the early years of primary education does not imply that such a programme will be successful in Key Stage 3. Brown et al (1998) were concerned that the approaches adopted in the Strategy might result in the fragmentation of the curriculum into a clearly-defined sequence of detailed learning objectives, which may present particular problems in the later years of education. They quote research evidence that a stepwise approach is a poor match to the existing evidence about the ways pupils learnthere may well be an increasing problem up the school of childrens learning becoming seriously out of phase with the Framework (ibid: 368). They cite evidence from the Pacific Rim countries (against which English schools were compared unfavourably at the time of the inception of the Strategy), where there is a high level of private coaching. In its favour, the authors note that the Strategy makes teachers aware of the connections between curricular objectives, encouraging pupils to appreciate the unity of the mathematics curriculum beyond the targeted levels. This is not necessarily the case with a textbook. In the introduction and in section 2.2.1, I referred to one of the major problems of measuring the success of the Strategy through monitoring the percentage of pupils attaining a particular level. I have observed that it is possible to meet such targets merely by concentrating on a small subgroup of the population. As a consequence, less attention may be paid to other pupils, on the basis that the higher attainers will achieve the targets anyway and, for lower attainers, the targets may not be achievable in Key Stage 3. Y9 booster classes, with their focus on borderliners can be viewed as operating in this way. In order to offer realistic challenges to all pupils, mathematics teachers will have to set appropriate targets for their individual pupils (for many pupils, these targets may be better addressed in terms of learning objectives rather than as National Curriculum attainment levels). 3.4 Special Needs and Differentiation Although the Framework devotes seven of its 56 pages of guidance to special needs and differentiation, the focus of this section is on teaching strategies intended to support whole-class approaches to teaching (DfEE: 2001: 32) and reflects the Strategys emphasis on whole-class teaching. The Framework states manageable differentiation is based on work common to all pupils in a class, with targeted support to help those who have difficulties (ibid: 6). One of the issues facing secondary schools is whether or not to set pupils by attainment. The Framework discusses setting as an approach to differentiation, but it avoids making recommendations. However, there is evidence from the pilot of the Strategy (Ofsted, 2002) that more schools are introducing setting in Year 7, using Key Stage 2 attainment data (ibid: 18). There is also an indication that setting facilitates the use of the Springboard 7 catch-up materials (ibid: 20). Thus, although the Strategy does not specifically recommend setting, its implementation may encourage schools to change from mixed-ability to setted groupings in mathematics. In its final report, the Numeracy Task Force (DfEE, 1998b) warns against setting as a panacea for primary schools. Brown et al (1998: 372) record that the research evidence for differentiation by setting is neutral. In its final report, the Numeracy Task Force (DfEE, 1998b) recorded that the range of attainment at the end of Key Stage 2 was too wide. The report proposed that the aim of the National Numeracy Strategy should be to allow all the children in a class to progress steadily, so that all of them reach a satisfactory standard and the range of attainment is much narrower (ibid: 54). Costello was concerned that this narrowing of attainment might encourage teachers to concentrate on teaching to the median: it seems inevitable that whole-class teaching will be geared towards a middle level of achievement. Indeed, the system almost imposes this tactic on schools, if performance is to be judged in terms of the percentage of pupils reaching a particular threshold. (Costello, 2000). This may result in less attention being given to two groups of students: those who are considered unable to reach this level of attainment (and who, arguably, need most help) and those who are expected to meet governmental expectations without any additional support. There is a danger that the needs of these pupils may be overlooked in the race for higher standards. There are indications from the pilot of the Strategy (Ofsted, 2002) that Lower attaining pupils, particularly in schools where a relatively large number entered Year 7 at level 3 or below, made less progress than higher-attaining pupils (ibid: 4) and that the pace and change of topics was too fast for lower-attaining pupils. (ibid: 21). Costello (2000) refers to the danger of ignoring the needs of able pupils if the curriculum is managed in such a way as to limit the range of attainment. (It is interesting to note that, in the English pilot, which ran concurrently with the mathematics pilot, progress was most pronounced made for pupils at levels 3 and 4. Progress was much less evident for pupils at level 2 and level 5 and above (Ofsted, 2002: 14), i.e. there was less evidence of progress for higher attainers and the very lowest attainers). In Chapter 2, I referred to a scenario where targets could be achieved by schools raising their level five pass rate, ignoring the learning needs of higher and lower attaining students. In effect, a school could demonstrate raised standards merely by raising the attainment in National Curriculum tests of a small proportion of pupils whose attainment is just below the median. The Governments targets could be met without addressing the attainment of the vast majority of pupils if the majority of schools were to adopt this approach. In their evaluation of the Numeracy and Literacy Strategies in primary schools, Earl et al (2001) express similar concerns about reliance on one public measure of success (ibid: 9). They observe that a single measure cannot fully capture all the important dimensions and nuances. Furthermore, people may put undue efforts into attempts to raise scores, giving less attention to important components not tapped by the measure (ibid: 19). Referring to the Key Stage 2 targets for 2002, they record concerns that with extra funding targeted to children who almost reach the target, SEN children in mainstream schools who are far from achieving level 4 may not get the extra time and teaching they need. (ibid: 14). Guidance for the organisation of Year 9 booster classes, aimed at raising attainment in the Key Stage 3, makes it clear that these classes are intended for students who are level 5 borderliners (DfES, 2002d). This will be viewed by many commentators as an indication that the Governments main concern is maximising the number of pupils attaining level five, rather than attending to the special needs of all pupils. 3.5 Direct Interactive Whole-Class Teaching The Strategys focus on direct, interactive, whole-class teaching is described in the Framework. The recommended approach to teaching is based on ensuringa high proportion of direct, interactive teaching (DfEE, 2001: 26). Overall aim for a high proportion of work with the whole-class (ibid: 28). The whole-class interactive approach to teaching is credited with being an important feature of the successful teaching of mathematics in such parts of the world as Hungary, Japan, and the Pacific Rim states: the rest of the world appears to achieve success through whole-class teaching of, for the most part, mixed ability groups (Andrews and Sinkinson, 2000: 52). Brown challenges the importance attached to whole-class teaching. She writes studies in the UK, in other countries and across different countries, also tend to show either that there is no effect due to the proportion of whole-class, group or individual teaching, or that there is a small effect which on average favours whole-class teaching. However, there are many exceptions for individual teachers where whole-class teaching is associated with poor results (Brown, 1999: 6). She concludes by saying, we have known all along that when it comes to assessing learning, quality of teaching is more important than class organisation, and this is broadly the message from the research studies. (ibid: 7). Where Brown is critical, Costello (2000) is damning: the thrust of the National Numeracy Strategy is fundamentally wrong (ibid: 2). Having identified direct interactive teaching as the one big idea underlying the Strategy, he cites the research of Bell et al. (1983: 269) into learning styles to support his assertion that a focus on one particular teaching approach disadvantages some pupils (Costello, 2000: 3). He describes this approach as inherently discriminatory, disadvantaging pupils through cognitive style, gender, cultural background and ability. He refers to research on gender differences indicating that the style of classroom activity can have a major effect on these differences in mathematics (ibid: 3). He notes that the Cockcroft Report (1982: 71) advocated a range of teaching approaches: the committee refused to indicate a definitive style for the teaching of mathematics, believing this to be neither desirable nor possible. Thus, it can be argued that the main thrust of the Numeracy Strategy contradicts the findings of the Cockcroft Report. I have quoted Browns observation that the quality of teaching is more important than the method of class organisation (Brown, 1999: 7). However, Brown et al (1998) do cite evidence of teaching approaches that promote attainment. Amongst these are using higher order questions, statements and tasks which require thought rather than practice; emphasis on establishing, through dialogue, meanings and connections between different mathematical ideas and contexts; collaborative problem-solving in class and small group settings (and) more autonomy for students to develop and discuss their own methods and ideas. (ibid: 373). The direct, interactive teaching approach recommended in the Framework is broadly consistent with Browns list (in particular, explaining and illustrating, questioning and discussion, consolidating, evaluating and summarising). It is possible that some of the teaching approaches recommended for the Strategy (especially demonstration and instruction) may be applied mechanistically. This could result in a teaching approach based on formal instruction from the teacher, with a strong emphasis on the use of standard procedures and techniques. Askew et al (1997) classify this as a transmission orientation. They identified three different teaching orientations: connectionist: emphasising pupils construction of their own knowledge, with the teacher guiding them, helping them refine their methods and helping them to draw connections with different aspects of the mathematics curriculum transmission: concerned with applying standard procedures and routines and discovery: pupils learn through activities with an emphasis on practical methods and applications of mathematics. Noting that these three orientations are not necessarily disjoint, and that teachers may display characteristics of two or more orientations, Askew et al found that pupils made greater progress when their teachers were of a strongly connectionist orientation (ibid: 24). Thus, a mechanistic, transmission, approach to direct, interactive teaching within the Strategy may not be in the best interest of pupils. As the implementation of the Key Stage 3 Strategy has progressed, the DfES has published booklets of exemplar lessons, conforming to the recommended teaching style, to accompany its training sessions (DfES, 2001; DfES, 2002). Lesson plans are also available on the Key Stage 3 web-site. In the school from which the sample is drawn, several teachers use these materials. The adoption of centrally prepared lessons provokes some concern about de-skilling, since teachers can become over-reliant on provided resources. The popularity of centrally-produced lessons was documented by Earl et al (2001). 3.6 Attitudes and Affective Responses to Mathematics It is widely accepted that pupils attitudes to mathematics can affect their attainment. Abilities, preferences, attitudes and motivation all contribute to making some pupils more successful than others (Orton, 1987: 107). There is a common and reasonable belief that positive attitudes, particularly liking for, and interest in, mathematics, lead to greater effort and in turn to higher achievement (Costello, 1991: 122). Concomitant with this is the view that interesting and enjoyable work will lead to greater attainment (Cockcroft, 1982: 61). These beliefs are broadly supported by research (McLeod, 1992; Bell, 1983), although researchers are careful not to overstate the importance of attitude to attainment. Bell et al note that there appears to be an identifiable (although small) correlation between attitude and achievement: it is not clear however, in what way attitude and achievement affect one anotherHowever, research certainly suggests caution against over-optimism in assuming a very direct relation between attitude and achievement (ibid: 254-255). Thus, as might be expected, research indicates that a pupils attainment in mathematics may be affected by her attitudes and feelings about mathematics. The Cockcroft Report (1982) noted a strong tendency among pupils of all ages to believe mathematics to be useful, but not necessarily interesting or enjoyable and observed that strongly polarised attitudes can be established, even amongst primary school children, and about 11 seems to be a critical age for this establishment. (ibid: 61). Celia Hoyles (1982) analysed pupils accounts of occasions when pupils had felt good or bad about learning mathematics. She identified a large proportion of examples where the learning of mathematics was a bad experience for pupils: anxiety, feelings of inadequacy and feelings of shame were quite common features of bad experiences in learning mathematics. (ibid: 368). Primary teachers accounts of their experiences of learning mathematics include many examples illustrating pupils fears of being ridiculed for their oral contributions to lessons (Ruffell et al, 1998). In a research project, Art and Design students were asked to recall their experiences of learning mathematics. Their accounts include descriptions of embarrassment at being singled out to perform a piece of mathematics in front of the class (Costello, 2000). Pupils participation in lessons may well be desirable, however there is evidence that, under certain circumstances, it can promote anxiety and negative feelings towards mathematics. In a more recent study, Ruffell et al (1998) set out to devise instruments to enable teachers to measure pupils attitudes. Their research led them to challenge some conventional views of attitude to mathematics, in particular the cause-and-effect model underlying much attitudinal research (ibid: 1) and the ontological basis for the notion of an attitudinal construct. Ruffell et al (ibid: 13) are careful to avoid describing attitude as a single, discrete construct: Seeing attitude as a constellation of impulses vying for cognitive attention and triggering physiological and hence emotional responses, provides an alternative perspective to a simplistic like-dislike model. For their research, Ruffell et al identified three underlying and interwoven domains, derived from Ajzen (1988) and Triandis (1971): cognitive: to do with beliefs affective: to do with feelings conative: to do with behavioural intent. In the paragraph before last, I referred to the damage that can result from negative attitudes to learning mathematics. To this end, teachers strive to make the learning environment as conducive as possible by promoting positive experiences and minimising negative experiences. However, if attitude to mathematics is a multi-dimensional construct, dependent on many different factors, then attitude can be affected in many different ways. In the following paragraphs I will discuss critiques of the Strategys possible impact on pupils attitudes to learning mathematics. As I described earlier in this chapter (section 3.5), concerns have been expressed about the emphasis the Strategy places on direct interactive teaching, with commentators advocating a more varied teaching style (Brown et al 1998; Brown, 1999; Costello, 2000; Tickly, 2000). It has been suggested that the direct interactive teaching approach, with its heavy emphasis on questioning of pupils may affect pupils attitudes to mathematics and prove alienating for some students. Brown et al (1989: 369) note that there is evidence of students feeling inadequate and weak at mathematics in those countries (such as the Pacific rim states) where there is an ambitious uniform curriculum for all pupils. The introduction of the Key Stage 3 Strategy may have similar consequences in the UK. Costello (2000) claims that direct interactive teaching can expose pupils to anxiety and negative experiences. The interactive, whole-class mathematics lesson, when it is the dominant teaching approach, is a fertile breeding ground for long-term dislike of mathematics. The more interactive it is (so that no one can escape involvement) and the more whole-class it is (so that everyones attention is on the pupil under the spotlight), the better the chance there is to set up a bad experience. (ibid: 5). He lists the most unsatisfactory current outcomes of mathematics education: the unpopularity of maths as a subject for further study large numbers of intelligent people happily claiming mathematical incompetence many pupils feeling mathematics to be a burden, threat or hurdle. Costello concludes that: we may have found a strategy which will perpetuate all of these things, and which has every prospect of making them worse. It should be noted that Costellos observations on the teaching approaches associated with the Strategy were presented in the form of a critique rather than as an analysis of empirical evidence (in fact the Key Stage 3 Strategy had not yet been implemented at the time they were written). In contrast to Costellos claims, there are reports of increased confidence, engagement and progress coming from primary schools, where the Strategy has been in place since 1999. In their evaluation of the Numeracy and Literacy Strategies in primary schools, Earl et al (2001: 74) note With a few exceptions, teachers and headteachers reported that children are more independent, more confident, better able to deal with a variety of mathematics problems and written texts and more knowledgeable about the technical vocabulary of English and mathematics. Ofsted (2000), in a review of the first term of the Key Stage 3 Strategy, noted pupils positive attitudes to mathematics, although they still lacked some confidence in problemsolving. In an article in the Times Education Supplement a numeracy consultant describes the gains in childrens self-esteem and attitudes to maths (TES, 2000e: 14). Another TES article reports Ofsted inspectors claims that the Strategy has had a profound impact on schools. Lessons are far more interactive, children enjoy maths more and standards have risen (TES, 2000f: 4). Golding (2001), describes how consultants and advisors are reporting whole classes of children bursting to participate, actively engaged in improving thinking skills, and loath to stop at the appointed time. (ibid: 3). Reports from primary schools appear to contradict Costellos claims about the potential disadvantages of the Strategy. However, much of this evidence is anecdotal. It also should be borne in mind that the beliefs, feelings and attitudes of secondary pupils will not necessarily correspond to those of primary pupils. Costellos concerns may be more pertinent to older pupils. However, it is worth noting that, in the evaluation of the Key Stage 3 pilot, Ofsted (2002: 21) records that mental and oral activities and the interactive teaching approach resulted in motivation and stimulation. 3.7 Summary There is research evidence that many of the approaches proposed in the Framework are effective (or have been found to be effective in certain circumstances). However, Brown et al (1998: 378) point out that: the research findings are sometimes equivocal and allow differences of interpretation. The Strategys approach to whole class teaching and limited differentiation attracts criticism, as it does its advocacy of a particular teaching approach (direct interactive teaching). In particular, a mechanistic or insensitive application of the Frameworks recommended approaches could fail to cater for pupils individual needs and reinforce negative feelings about mathematics. Costello (2000: 4) suggests that the recommendation that pupils should answer questions and discuss mathematics with the whole-class may have a devastating effect on pupils affective responses to mathematics. The implementation of the approaches to teaching recommended in the Framework will have to be given careful consideration to ensure that they do not generate problems in themselves. CHAPTER FOUR METHODOLOGY In this research project I aim to explore some of the consequences of the introduction of the Key Stage 3 Strategy. To do this, I have focused on Year 8 pupils at a very large comprehensive school and their perceptions of school mathematics before and after the implementation of the Strategy. In particular, I have followed two distinct strands of enquiry. Pupils feelings and attitudes about mathematics. Pupils experiences of the specific approaches to teaching mathematics recommended in the Framework for the Strategy. 4.1 Research Paradigms A distinction is often drawn between three main research paradigms; the scientific, the interpretative and the critical-theoretic (Ernest, 2000b: 29). In Ernests account, the scientific paradigm is usually associated with the aim of discovering underlying objective truths, or constructing useful models of the phenomena under investigation. The methods associated with this paradigm are mainly quantitative (hence this is often known as the quantitative paradigm, mistakenly so, according to some commentators, as Ernest points out). Unlike the scientific paradigm, the interpretative paradigm is less concerned with objectivity and validity. Instead, Ernest describes its ontological basis as subjective or intersubjective perceptions of reality (ibid: 39). Within this research paradigm, there is no assumption that objective truths and laws exist to be discovered. Ernest associates this paradigm with the aim of exploring the particular in order to illustrate the general: the overriding characteristic of the interpretative research paradigm is that it is concerned to uncover new ideas from the data (ibid: 39). This paradigm is often associated with qualitative case studies (hence the common use of the term qualitative paradigm to describe it). Similar to the interpretative paradigm, the critical-theoretic paradigm is predicated on notions of socially constructed reality. However, within the critical-theoretic paradigm, reality is socially negotiated and knowledge is a social construct. Whereas the interpretative paradigm is concerned with understanding, this paradigm is primarily concerned with using understanding to achieve change and social justice. Action-research is typically associated with this paradigm. This is a form of research in which the researcher becomes involved, acting on the spot to modify circumstances to bring about benefit (Cohen and Manion, 1994, quoted in Bell, 1999). Each of these paradigms can be associated with particular beliefs and philosophies of mathematics and mathematics education (Ernest, 2000b). In this account, I will concentrate on the appropriateness of these paradigms to my chosen investigational focus. A critical theoretic approach is inconsistent with the aims of this project as they are formulated. The project aims to explore pupils attitudes and experiences in an impartial manner. Although the project may result in recommendations being made to benefit pupils, the aim of the research phase of the project is to collect information to describe these attitudes and experiences, not to alter the conditions under which they occur. Both of the areas for investigation lend themselves to qualitative research approaches, since both concern individual, affective responses. Case studies, for example, may yield narratives which offer insights into how individuals feelings about mathematics have changed as a result of the introduction of the Strategy. Similarly, open-minded observation of a number of lessons is likely to enable the observer to identify and pursue avenues of enquiry that may be ignored under an objective and impersonal regime of data-collection. In these cases, making inferences about larger groups of pupils is not necessary; these are personal accounts, dealing with individual truths. However, being about individual truths, this research approach does not facilitate the intention of this project, the identification of the general characteristics of pupils attitudes and experiences. As I explain in the following paragraphs, the methodology underlying this research project can best be described as scientific. However, there are characteristics of this project that do not correspond neatly with those characteristics commonly ascribed to this paradigm. Since the sample was drawn from a school that I know very well, I cannot be strictly impartial and objective as an observer. Not only are my perceptions affected by my knowledge of the school, its pupils and its staff, but also the respondents are aware that their responses are being analysed by an interested party. On the other hand, my knowledge of the school and its circumstances enables me to place the data gathered for this project within a broader context. My knowledge helps me to explain and interpret the results of the project, in a subjective manner. In Ernests, admittedly simplified, summary of the scientific paradigm (ibid: 33), he describes its ontological and epistemological bases. He records that, typically, these are scientific realism and absolutist, objective knowledge respectively, based on a cognitivist or information processing model of learning. It is my belief that these underlying views of learning mathematics are not a necessary condition for a quantitative research approach: in fact, I do not share them. I prefer to see the data I have gathered for this research as snapshots in numbers rather than immutable manifestations of some external reality. The advantage of these snapshots is that they can be manipulated to offer different, but nonetheless real, views in much the same way that snapshots can be cropped, enlarged or combined with others to produce different, but real, images of the same event. I have explained that my use of a quantitative research methodology is not entirely objective. In the following paragraphs, I will explain why I have elected to use quantitative methods. The reasons that I will give fall into three broad categories: because of the nature of the Framework for the KS3 Strategy because of the nature of the TIMSS items on pupils attitudes because of my aim to draw some general conclusions about how the implementation of the Strategy has affected pupils at this school. 4.2 Principles Underlying the Strategy and TIMMS The principles underlying the Strategy and the development of the Framework are consistent with those underlying the scientific paradigm. The Framework (with its focus on hierarchies of learning objectives, assessed by national testing) is underpinned by a model of learning whose epistemology is based on a hierarchical model of mathematics and is concerned with the performance outcomes associated with this hierarchy (it may be described as neo-behaviourist). Although there is some controversy over the extent to which the Framework can claim to be research-based (as I recorded in Chapter 3, section 3.1.), documents (DfEE, 1998a, 1998b, 2001 and Numeracy Task Force, 1998) make it clear that the Strategy was certainly intended by the DfEE to be research-based. It was developed using research data from a number of sources, with the intended outcome of identifying the most effective approaches to teaching mathematics (i.e. identifying general truths). Thus, the Framework may be seen as an attempt to present general truths about the best way to achieve the performance criteria associated with the hierarchy. This is consistent with the scientific paradigm. TIMSS was mainly concerned with measuring international mathematical attainment, supported by information collected through a background questionnaire. The TIMSS items on students attitudes and beliefs were taken from the background questionnaire. I decided to use these items to allow me to draw comparisons with the results from TIMSS (I will expand on this in the next chapter, dealing with my methods). Since I have used TIMSS items, it is inevitable that the TIMSS methodology will, at the very least, influence mine. In the TIMSS research, empirical data (in the form of Likert responses corresponding to pre-determined categories) was collected and analysed to formulate a comparative view of attainment in different countries using quantitative methods. This approach is consistent with the representation of the scientific paradigm described by Ernest (2000b: 43). The subject centred pedagogical aims of TIMSS are also consistent with this paradigm: the main purpose of TIMSS was to focus on educational policies, practices, and outcomes in order to enhance mathematics and science learning within and across systems of education (Beaton et al, 1996: 7). Thus, the use of the TIMSS research creates a predisposition towards the scientific paradigm. For this research project, I wished to make some generalisations about the schools Year 8 population, which I could compare with the TIMSS data on attitudes and with the specific teaching approaches recommended in the Framework. I was able to exploit the possibility of drawing on a large (almost 100%) sample from this population. Since the TIMSS items were presented in questionnaire form and since the teaching approaches recommended in the Framework were relatively easy to itemise within a questionnaire format, I also decided to use a questionnaire as the main instrument for collecting the research data. The use of a questionnaire enables data to be collected from a large sample with efficiency and helps to confer reliability by posing questions in a consistent form to the respondents. This approach lends itself to quantitative methods of analysis, allowing statistical inferences to be drawn from the data. Hence my approach to identifying, collecting and analysing data is consistent with the scientific paradigm. 4.3 Summary In the above paragraphs, I have explained how my approach to this research project broadly fits the scientific paradigm. Likewise, my methods and the research items I have used have a high degree of consistency with this paradigm (i.e. quantitative). However, as I have also described earlier, there are several reasons why my approach does not conform strictly to the model of the scientific paradigm as described by Ernest (2000b: 43). The theoretical positions underlying my research concerning ontology, epistemology, interest, outcomes and broad aims are more consistent with an interpretative paradigm rather than the scientific. I am privileged to have an insiders subjective view of the school from which the sample is drawn. This raises concerns about scientific objectivity. Because the sample is drawn from Year 8 pupils from just one school, it cannot be treated as being representative of any larger population. This research cannot be used to make inferences about pupils beliefs and perceptions of the teaching styles they experience on a national basis; instead, it is a case study of a particular subset of this population. Although I hope that useful inferences and understandings may be drawn from the finished research, I cannot guarantee that the results from this sample can be generalised for the national population. Considering the points made above, this research project may be treated as a case study of the introduction of the Strategy in Year 8 of a particular school of which the researcher is a part. This can be described as an ethnographic case study, drawing on understandings developed from involvement in the population. Denscombe (1998: 69) describes this approach as allowing the researcher to see things as those involved see things. Bell (1999) describes the ethnographic style as deriving from research in anthropology, involving the integration of the researchers into the population being studied. She draws attention to the problems of making generalisation referred to above, but points out that such studies may be relatable in a way that will enable members of similar groups to recognise problems and, possibly, see ways of solving similar problems in their own group (ibid: 13). CHAPTER FIVE METHODS In the previous chapter, I discussed the methodology underpinning this research project. In particular, I explained why I chose to use quantitative methods. In this chapter, I will describe: how I selected the population sample how I chose and devised the instruments to gather the data and how I chose to analyse the data. In each case, I will justify my methods by reference to the aims of the research project. Finally, I will discuss: the pilot of my research validity and reliability of the results and ethical considerations with regards to this project 5.1 Overview This project aims to explore how the introduction of the Key Stage Three Strategy has affected pupils attitudes to learning mathematics and their perceptions of the teaching approaches they experience. Two populations of pupils from one school were chosen for the research, to allow comparisons to be drawn between the results before and after the implementation of the Strategy. The first population was the school cohort in Year 8 between September 2000 and July 2001. This group had not been formally involved in the Key Stage 3 Strategy. The second population, the next Year 8 cohort, had been subject to the National Numeracy Strategy in Key Stage 2 and the Key Stage 3 Strategy in Years 7 and 8. The pupils completed a questionnaire using eighteen TIMSS items to investigate their attitudes and affective responses to learning mathematics and twenty-seven other items investigating the teaching approaches they had experienced in mathematics lessons. 5.2 The School The school from which the research population was drawn is a large (more than 2000 pupils), 11-18 comprehensive community college in the south-west of England. It serves a seaside town of population 35 000, ten miles from the nearest city. Although the catchment area includes a proportion of affluent families, there are several wards in the town where there are significant social problems. At the end of the academic year 2001-2002, 13% of the schools pupils claimed free meals, a figure the school believes under-represents the number of families entitled to claim them. Like many schools in its geographical area, the vast majority of the students speak English as a first language. The school is a split-site comprehensive and subject to a degree of creaming by local selective and private schools. Its GCSE results are near, but slightly below, the national median. Because of the large number of students on roll, and a number of characteristics typical of other schools throughout the country, it may be considered to be representative of many aspects of English schools. However, the pupil and teacher populations of the school cannot be treated as a random sample of such populations nationally. 5.3 The Year Eight Sample The Key Stage 3 Strategy was implemented nationally in September 2001. In the school from which the sample was drawn, the Strategy was introduced in Year 7 in September 2000, using the Framework developed for the national pilot of the Strategy. Like many other schools, the approaches recommended in the Strategy were introduced early to continue the initiative started in primary schools the previous year. In the sample school, the Strategy was implemented through a rolling programme, eventually covering Years 7, 8 and 9 by September 2002. At the start of this project (early in 2001), only the Year 7 cohort had been taught within the Framework of the Strategy, Years 8 and 9 were to remain unaffected (formally) by the rolling introduction of the Strategy. It was therefore impossible to carry out a comparative longitudinal survey with one cohort. Instead, I chose to use two consecutive Year 8 groups. This enabled me to compare two similar groups at the same stage in their mathematics education, with only one major difference between them: the first group had not been subject to the Strategy, whereas the second group had. It is tempting to think of the first of these Year 8 groups as a control group, however this would not be strictly correct. The programme of study for the first of the two Year 8 groups took no account of the Framework, and was organised around existing practice and resources. Although this cohort was not formally involved in the implementation of the Strategy, it is likely that the teaching approaches used with these pupils had been influenced by the Strategy. Secondary mathematics teachers had become acquainted (to varying degrees) with the Framework since its introduction in 1999. In the case of this particular school, departmental training and meeting time had been dedicated to the Strategy and its Framework since 1999. In view of the publicity, written articles, meetings and training programmes associated with the introduction of the Strategy, it would have been surprising to find many secondary mathematics teachers completely unaware of (and hence independent of) aspects of the Framework. On a national level, it is unlikely that any control group, totally independent from aspects of the Framework, could have been found. Taking these considerations into account, I chose to continue with this group, for two reasons: Other control groups are likely to be as problematic as this one. The whole project is designed to be a case study of Year 8 pupils in this particular school. (This however, means that generalisations may not be made freely from the results). For the reasons that I have detailed above, throughout this account I will refer to the first of the two Year 8 groups investigated as the comparison group, rather than the control group. 5.4 Sample Size Year 8 in the sample school generally has between 350 and 450 pupils on roll, taught in two comparable timetable populations and set by attainment for mathematics. In both years of the project, the questionnaire was given to all pupils in Year 8 mathematics lessons on a particular day. The first sample consisted of 380 (out of approximately 430) pupils taught in 17 mathematics classes, the second sample consisted of 331 (out of approximately 380) pupils drawn from 18 different mathematics classes. In each case, the sample was a significant majority of the whole population, although slightly smaller than the schools average daily attendance rate of about 90% (in 2001-2002). 5.5 Using a Questionnaire As I have already described, I wished to compare my results with those from TIMSS. The most reliable way of doing this was to use the same items as TIMSS, i.e. in a questionnaire form. A well-designed questionnaire is an effective way of collecting quantitative data. It offers the same questions in exactly the same format to all respondents, thereby promoting reliability. It can be completed quickly, ensuring that respondents maintain their concentration and interest, also promoting reliable responses. As described earlier, the nature of this project meant that quantitative methods would be appropriate. Eighteen test items were taken from TIMSS for the first section (What you think about mathematics concerning pupils beliefs about and attitudes to mathematics). Since the TIMSS questionnaire had offered four Likert response options I chose to use these throughout the questionnaire. Of the remaining twenty-seven items (exploring pupils experiences of mathematics teaching), four were taken from TIMSS and the others were written to reflect the approaches to teaching recommended for the Strategy. The placing of the questions within the questionnaire was randomised within the two sections. The first question served as an introduction to the questionnaire and its response scale had a different wording from the others, so it was placed at the beginning. The remaining questions on beliefs and attitudes all used the same four-point Likert scale taken from TIMSS (strongly agree, agree, disagree, strongly disagree) and were placed in random order (from Q2 to Q18). Similarly, the teaching style questions were placed in random order (from Q19 to Q45) using a four-point Likert scale taken from the four TIMSS items (almost always, quite often, once in a while, never). In analysing the data, I coded these responses so that strongly agree and almost always were scored 1, agree and quite often were scored 2 etc. I have used the term Likert positive to indicate responses scoring 2 or less. In compiling the questionnaire, I noticed that TIMSS items were often worded slightly differently in the different reports (which could threaten reliability, validity and subsequent comparisons). To address this, I used the details of the background questionnaire from the TIMSS website ( HYPERLINK http://ustimss.msu.edu/ http://ustimss.msu.edu/) to obtain the exact wording of the items. 5.6 TIMSS Items Pupils feelings, beliefs and affective responses to learning mathematics constitute a rich area for educational research. Many instruments have been developed to support research in this area. For this research project I have chosen to use the TIMSS items (from the Background Questionnaire) addressing attitudes to and beliefs about mathematics for three main reasons. The first TIMSS reports were published in 1996, shortly before the publication of the Numeracy Task Force reports. Hence the TIMSS results reflect levels of attainment in and attitudes to mathematics that were directly addressed by the development of the National Numeracy Strategy. In particular, the Strategy addressed concerns fuelled by international comparisons (of which TIMSS was the most recent). In its historical context alone, TIMSS was extremely relevant to the development of the Numeracy Strategy (which eventually led to the Key Stage 3 Strategy). TIMSS was a very large and well-planned international project for which the test items were developed with due regard to statistical integrity, especially reliability. (Validity is harder to ensure especially where common items are being used in different social and educational contexts.) Using the TIMSS items also meant that that I did not have to devise, trial and adapt any items (with all of the concomitant pitfalls) for this section. Using the TIMSS items enables me to compare the results from my research with national and international results. 5.7 Clusters In their report, Keys et al (1997) analysed the TIMSS items on pupils attitudes and beliefs about mathematics (that were used in Section 1 of my questionnaire) in clusters: Students attitudes towards mathematics Students perceived ability in mathematics Qualities required to do well in mathematics The importance of doing well in mathematics Reasons for doing well in mathematics In Keys account, the attitude cluster comprises six items: How much do you like maths? I enjoy learning maths maths is boring maths is an easy subject maths is important in everyones life I would like a job involving maths. However, for the TIMSS research, Beaton et al (1997) used one fewer item in the composite attitudes scale, as Keys et al (ibid: 72) acknowledge. In my analysis, I have not included this item How much do you like mathematics in the attitudes cluster. Instead, I have combined it with the one item (I usually do well in mathematics at school) which Keys offers as a second cluster. This new cluster may be seen as addressing the rewarding aspects of mathematics at school. Apart from the TIMSS attitudes cluster, for which data is available for comparison, I have used the clusters primarily as a way of grouping and comparing sets of responses. Although I have calculated cluster means and proportions of the cluster giving positive responses, these data are statistically problematic. I will discuss these measures in more detail in the section of this chapter addressing methods of analysis. In the analysis of the data for 2001 and 2002 I have used the clusters more as a means of identifying related items, rather than as sources of measures for particular attributes. 5.8 Section 1 Items Appendix 5.1 lists all of the items used in the questionnaire, relating them to clusters of related constructs, Appendix 5.2 relates clusters to questionnaire items. Below, I will describe each of the clusters in Section 1 of the questionnaire. Cluster A How rewarding is mathematics at school? Question 1: How much do you like mathematics? Question 18: I usually do well in mathematics at school This was not an original TIMSS cluster, but one that I found useful to explore the relationship between the pupils liking of mathematics and their ideas of their success in this subject, both of which may be viewed as rewarding outcomes of maths at school. Cluster B Pupils attitudes to mathematics Question 5: I enjoy learning maths Question 8: Maths is an easy subject Question 9: Maths is important in everyones life Question 11: I would like a job involving maths Question 13: Maths is boring Clearly, a positive response to question 13 has a different sense (or Likert charge) from the other items. In calculating the cluster mean, I have followed TIMSS practice and reversed the coding for this item. Cluster C Qualities required to do well in mathematics Question 3 To do well in mathematics at school you need lots of hard work studying at home Question 4 To do well in mathematics at school you need to memorise the textbook or notes Question 14 To do well in mathematics at school you need lots of natural talent Question 16 To do well in mathematics at school you need good luck Items 3 and 4 are about approaches to study that pupils can adopt to make progress in mathematics, whereas items 14 and 16 concern factors over which the pupil has no influence. To maintain the sense of the cluster, I have reversed the scoring for items 14 and 16 in calculating the cluster means and proportions. A Likert positive response to this cluster may be seen as an indication that the respondent believes that success in mathematics depends on effort, rather than luck or natural ability Cluster D The importance of doing well in mathematics at school Question 6 My parents/carers think it is important for me to do well in mathematics at school Question 12 Most of my friends think it is important to do well in mathematics at school Question 15 I think it is important to do well in mathematics at school This cluster is concerned with social views about the importance of doing well in mathematics at school. Cluster E Reasons for doing well in mathematics Question 2 I need to do well in mathematics to please my parents Question 7 I need to do well in mathematics to please myself Question 10 I need to do well in mathematics to get into the college or university I prefer Question 17 I need to do well in mathematics to get the job I want All of these may be considered as motivating factors for doing well in mathematics 5.9 Section 2 Items For the Section 2 items, I identified the key aspects of the approaches to teaching recommended in the Framework for the Strategy (described in Chapter 2, section 2.4). I grouped these constructs into clusters as in Section 1 and designed at least two questionnaire items to address each of these clusters. This enabled me to compare the responses for each of the different constructs. In the pilot stage, (Wilson, 2001), I was able to check for consistency across the sample (i.e. to check whether the items are reliable) and to confirm that individual respondents had answered consistently (i.e. the cluster items produced reliable results). In designing my items, I also had to be careful to avoid having so many items that the questionnaire became too long. I was fortunate to be able to include four relevant TIMSS items in my questionnaire. I devised the other items. To promote consistency of interpretation and to permit comparisons to be made between items, I was careful to make these items consistent with the TIMSS authorial voice and similar to the four TIMSS items. For example, the TIMSS items referred to the class as we, so I expressed the new items in the first person rather than the third (we rather than the class). Similarly, I used the teacher, rather than our teacher in the new items. As in Section 1, I randomised the question numbers so that the cluster items were not grouped together on the questionnaire. 5.10 Section 2 Clusters In Chapter 2 (section 2.4), I discussed the implications of the Key Stage 3 Strategy for teaching. I provided a checklist based on a document (OHT 1.4: A Typical Daily Mathematics Lesson), from a DfEE training package for secondary schools (DfEE, 2000a: 57, see section 2.4.5). This is detailed below. For each cluster of constructs I have highlighted the key word in italics. (This section of the questionnaire was also given to the class teachers, enabling comparisons to be drawn between the pupils and the teachers responses.) Oral and mental starter to rehearse and sharpen skills Main teaching and pupil activities clear objectives shared with pupils direct teaching input participative style practical and/or written work for pupils on the same theme for all the class group work, usually differentiated at no more than 3 levels, with focused teaching of 1 or 2 groups for part of the time misconceptions identified Plenary feedback from children to identify progress and sort misconceptions summary of key ideas, what to remember links made to other work, next steps, work set to do at home In addition to these descriptors, I have added two more of my own to reflect the recommendations of the Strategy: a clear end to the three-part lesson and a strong emphasis on mental and oral mathematics throughout lessons as a whole, not just within the starter. These groupings of constructs can be described more simply by the following clusters: A: Starter B: Objectives C: Direct teaching D: Same theme E: Group work F: Misconceptions G: Feedback H: Summary I: Links J: End K: Mental / oral maths There are a number of over-arching constructs within the Strategy. These may appear in several clusters, as well as in their own right. Therefore these clusters are not necessarily independent, neither are they disjoint. Consequently, some items will appear in more than one cluster. For example, mental mathematics appears in three clusters, starters, direct teaching and mental / oral mathematics. There were only four TIMSS items that related directly to these constructs; (questions 20, 24, 25 and 42). Of these, only question 24 was relevant to two clusters. Consequently, test items were developed to cover each of the clusters A K at least twice. Details of these questions can be found in the appendices. Appendix 5 is the final questionnaire. Appendix 5.1 is a framework, relating the questionnaire items to particular clusters of constructs and Appendix 5.2 gives a summary of the clusters in the questionnaire. I will use two particular clusters to illustrate how the items were developed to match the criteria for the clusters of constructs. Construct A addresses the use of starters. It concerns the beginning of the lesson, which the Strategy recommends should focus on mental mathematics and oral work to rehearse, sharpen and develop mental skills (DfEE, 2001: 47). The three items in this cluster are questions 26, 27 and 38. Question 27 (There is a mental mathematics starter for the whole class) refers directly to the cluster constructs. This item also relates to cluster K, which concerns mental and oral mathematics (whether or not it occurs in the starter). Question 38 (Our lessons are split into three parts, a beginning, a middle and an end. We have different things to do in each part of the lesson) deals explicitly with the three-part lesson, of which the starter is an integral part. Although a positive response to this question is consistent with the cluster constructs, a negative response is not necessarily inconsistent with them, it may, for example, be the result of the lack of a clear end. As this item refers explicitly to the recommended three-part structure for lessons, responses to it may prove interesting in their own right. Question 38 also relates to construct J, concerning the end of the lesson. Question 26 (We start the lesson by carrying on with our work from the previous lesson) refers to the common practice of continuing from the previous lesson (which is contrary to the recommended teaching approaches in the Framework). It also makes a direct reference to the start of the lesson. It has negative Likert polarity with regard to the constructs in this cluster, which must be borne in mind when the results for the cluster items are compared. To preserve the sense of the cluster, the coding for this question is reversed when determining cluster means and proportions (when the results for this item are considered alone the coding is not changed). Question 26 is relevant in its own right, as responses to it may shed some light on the prevalence of the continue from where you left off teaching approach. Cluster C addresses direct interactive teaching. This lies at the heart of the Strategy, the recommended approach to teaching is based on ensuringa high proportion of direct, interactive teaching (ibid: 26). In the Framework, direct interactive teaching is described in terms of eight teaching strategies, whose elements are not necessarily disjoint (ibid: 26-27). Cluster C is addressed by eighteen items in the questionnaire, some relevant to more than one teaching approach. The following list shows how the eighteen questions relate to the eight approaches (the wording of the questions is available in Appendix 5). Directing and telling: sharing teaching objectives with the class, so that pupils know what they are doing and drawing their attention to particular issues (questions 29, 37 and 43). Demonstrating and modelling: showing, and describing aspects of mathematics (questions 20 and 44). Explaining and illustrating (questions 31, 33 and 35). Questioning and discussing: using appropriate questioning strategies to involve all students in class discussions (questions 28, 31, 34, 35, 39 and 43). Exploring and investigating: problem-solving and following lines of mathematical enquiry including the use of different forms of representation. (This was not a category in the draft Framework (DfEE, 2000c). The questionnaire had already been used for the 2001 sample before the final version of the Framework was available. Hence, no items were devised specifically for this aspect of direct interactive teaching. It is however, loosely covered by questions 32, 35, 42 and 43.) Consolidating and embedding: reinforcing and developing what has been taught, including work with partners and groups (questions 23, 25, 28, 32, 35 and 42). Reflecting and evaluating: identifying mistakes and misconceptions, giving feedback on the work (questions 23, 28, 34 and 40). Summarising and reminding: reviewing what has been taught and what has been learnt, at (or towards) the end of the lesson. Identifying misconceptions and giving an insight into further work. (Question 19, 23, 28, 32, 34, 40 and 45.) Developing the appropriate wording for each item presented difficulties. The first draft of the questionnaire was discussed at a research seminar at Exeter University in February 2001 where delegates identified items whose phrasing could be improved. Some alternatives were suggested. The analysis of the pupils responses to the pilot phase of this project highlighted inconsistencies, unforeseen ambiguities and sources of misunderstanding. These were addressed by improving the phrasing of some of the items. 5.11 Methods of Analysis As I described in the previous chapter (section 4.3), the methodology underpinning this project is ostensibly quantitative, albeit with a tendency to a more interpretative approach than is usually associated with the Scientific Paradigm (I use the phrase painting pictures with numbers to describe my approach). I do not intend to be heavily reliant on statistical techniques in my analysis. In the two following chapters (6 and 7), I use statistical measures as indicators of features of the data, which I will address discursively. In Chapter 8 (where I compare the data for 2001 and 2002), I use tests based on the normal distribution for differences between mean scores and proportions for the pupils results. (The details of these tests are outlined in the appropriate appendices). As I described earlier in this chapter, the pupils responses were coded by taking the Likert responses and coding them 1, 2, 3 or 4 depending on the level of agreement with the statement of the item. (For example, in Section 1, the Likert response strongly agree was coded 1 whereas in Section 2 almost always was coded 1 etc.) I used these codings to calculate a mean score and a standard deviation for the pupils responses to each item. I also recorded the proportion of respondents giving Likert positive (i.e. coded 1 or 2) responses to each item. These statistics were calculated for the whole of the sample in each year and for the boys and the girls separately in Section 1 so that comparative data were available for investigating attitudes. I calculated Likert positive proportions for the Section 2 items for each class. Where the teacher and the majority of her class gave responses with the same Likert charge (i.e. positive or negative), I called this agreement between the teacher and the class for that particular item (see Appendices 6.7a & 7.6a). For each item, the number of agreements from the whole year group was tested for significance using a binomial test (the details of this are explained in Appendices 6.7b & 7.6b). In the analysis of the data from this project, I chose to use parametric tests since they are generally more powerful than non-parametric tests (Siegel, 1956: 19). The values 1, 2, 3 and 4 assigned to the Likert responses form an ordinal (order-preserving) scale. Unfortunately, ordinal scales are not necessarily suited to analysis by parametric means, since their underlying measurement structure does not always justify the use of arithmetic operations. It is, however, appropriate to use the main parametric tests on interval scales (ibid: 23-29). It is therefore necessary to establish that the Likert scale points can be treated as occupying equally spaced positions in an interval. The analysis used throughout this project makes the modelling assumption that the values 1, 2, 3 and 4 used to represent SA, A, D and SD form an interval scale (a similar argument can be made for the responses almost always to never). In this model, the range of agreement from complete agreement to complete disagreement forms a continuum. The Likert responses divide this continuum into four equal regions corresponding to the four statements (note: this does not mean that responses will be regularly distributed over this continuum). Each of these regions can be represented by its midpoint. These midpoints are evenly spaced. When these midpoints are assigned the values 1 to 4 (corresponding to Likert responses SA to SD) they form an interval scale. Earlier in this chapter, in the description of the clusters of items in the questionnaire, I referred to the statistical analysis of the cluster data and the associated problems. I have used the term the cluster mean to describe the arithmetic mean of a pupils codings for all of the items in a particular cluster. Where a pupil omitted one or more responses, that pupils responses were not included in the analysis of the cluster (although the pupils responses to individual items were still taken into account in the analysis of the particular questions). As a descriptive measure, the cluster mean has limited value (except for the attitudes cluster which has been extensively used by TIMSS). I have chosen to call a cluster mean of less than 2.5 (the mean and median of the scalings 1 to 4) Likert positive. Choosing this cut-off value enabled me to call results of at least 2.5 Likert negative, thereby splitting my results into two categories, which is consistent with the presentation of the TIMSS results (Keys et al: 1997). In the analysis of TIMSS results, reference is made to the proportion of pupils responding positively to the attitude cluster (ibid). I chose to indicate the proportion of pupils responding positively to each of the clusters. To achieve this I found the proportion of students whose cluster mean was Likert positive (i.e. whose cluster mean was less than 2.5). For example, in my analysis of the 2002 Section 2 results, 36% of the cluster means for Cluster F (consisting of two items) were Likert positive. However, if I had changed my definition slightly, so that cluster means of 2.5 or less were called Likert positive, then another 86 cluster means of 2.5 would have had to be taken into consideration. This would have resulted in a positive proportion of 63% instead of 36%. Hence, for small clusters (especially those consisting of two items), the proportion of Likert positive cluster means may not be helpful. This is true throughout this account. I have described some of the problems associated with using the mean of the cluster means and the proportion of Likert positive cluster means, especially for clusters with a small (and even) number of items. I will not attach much significance to them in the analyses of the 2001 and 2002 data (in chapters 6 and 7), except when comparing the attitudes results with the corresponding TIMSS results. However, they will be used to compare the two data sets in chapter 8, since they are calculated the same way for each year and therefore comparable. In the analysis of the data for 2001 and 2002, I have used the cluster data more as a means of identifying related items, rather than as measures of a particular attribute. 5.12 The Pilot The pilot phase of this project was carried out in February 2001 (Wilson, 2001). For consistency, it took place in the school that was used for the full project. Neither Year 7 nor Year 8 pupils could be used in the pilot since both year groups were to be involved in the full project. Instead, I ran the pilot with Year 9. Before issuing the questionnaires, I circulated copies to teachers and the Heads of Year 9 and Key Stage 3 so that they could identify any problems. In the light of this review, several minor changes were made to the wording of the questionnaire. In consultation with the head of year, I selected a tutor group (considered to be of mixed ability) as the sample for the pilot. Before asking the pupils to complete the questionnaire, I spoke to the group, explaining the purpose of the research and asking the pupils to comment on the questionnaire itself. A note, explaining the purpose of the questionnaire was attached to each questionnaire. Twenty-eight pupils completed the questionnaire. All of the questionnaires were completed within ten minutes, which was satisfactory (as I wished to engage the pupils concentration throughout the questionnaire). The pupils written comments and their responses to the items were analysed for inconsistencies arising from the wording of the questionnaire. As a result of this analysis, six items (21, 29, 30, 31, 38 and 39) were re-phrased for the final version. 5.13 Validity and Reliability Issues of reliability and validity have to be addressed in every research project, especially in cases where quantitative methods are used and inferences drawn. To this end, I adopted a number of strategies for this project. In particular: I used a questionnaire. As far as possible, I used TIMSS items. Where there were none available to test particular constructs, I devised items in the TIMSS authorial voice. I used DfEE documentation to determine the constructs being examined in Section 2 of the questionnaire. I referred the test items to researchers and academics at Exeter University and to the teaching staff at the school from which the sample was drawn. I conducted a pilot where not only were results analysed for the consistency of the pupils responses to particular clusters of items, but where the pupils were asked to comment on the questionnaire items. I compared the teachers responses to Section 2 with the pupils as a form of triangulation. In the following paragraphs, I will address each of these points in turn. Questionnaire As I noted earlier in the chapter, the use of a questionnaire can promote reliability. It offers a consistent format, so that all respondents are asked exactly the same questions. The questionnaire used Likert-style response options, this promotes consistency in the responses. This response format also promotes reliability through providing data for analysis in a consistent form. TIMSS Items TIMSS was a major international research project, encompassing different societies and educational systems. The TIMSS documentation refers to the rigour with which the items were developed (Keys et al, 1997 3-6), it may therefore be reasonable to assume that these items were developed with due regard for the demands of validity and reliability. (In the pilot for this project, the pupils responses to clusters of TIMSS items were subjected to analysis, the results of which supported this assumption.). The items specifically devised for this project were expressed in the TIMSS style to promote consistency of presentation of items and to support consistency of responses. DfEE Documentation In Chapter 2 (section 2.4.5), I gave a checklist, from a training package for secondary schools (DfEE, 2000a: 57), identifying the main teaching approaches recommended for the Strategy. In this chapter I have described how I used this checklist as a framework for the derivation of the questionnaire items (see also Appendix 5.1). This has helped to ensure the validity of the project results through providing coherence and internal consistency within the test items, and accurately addressing the specific approaches to teaching identified by the DfEE as being central to the Strategy. Colleagues In the discussion of the pilot earlier in this chapter, I described how I sought the advice of colleagues in phrasing the items. Several changes were made as a result of this. These changes promote validity of the instruments through posing the questions precisely and unequivocally and reliability through making the questions intelligible and transparent to the respondent. Pilot As a result of the pilot, six items (21, 29, 30, 31, 38 and 39) were reworded to avoid misunderstandings (Wilson, 2001). This helps to promote validity through ensuring that each test item addresses the particular construct it is intended to test. Reliability is promoted through making the constructs being tested in the items clear and explicit to the respondents. Triangulation Triangulation is a process used to establish the reliability of results derived from one method through comparison with the results obtained from other methods. (The term derives from an analogy with surveying, in which measurements are obtained through reference to sightings from two fixed points.) Bell (1999: 102) describes triangulation as a multi-method approach to cross-checking findings. Triangulation is particularly important in validating the results from interpretative methods (Ernest, 2000b: 39). As I have described in the previous chapter, the methodology of this research project broadly fits the scientific paradigm, however an opportunity for triangulation was established in the design of the project. Section 2 of the questionnaire was presented to both groups of Year 8 pupils and their teachers. Not only did this provide information about the teachers perceptions of the teaching approaches they employed, it also enabled me to compare each teachers own perceptions of their teaching approaches with those of the pupils from their class. Had the class teachers responses been used as the only indicators of the teaching approaches employed in their classes, some problems with the validity of the results might have been expected. However, where the teachers perceptions of classroom practice (the taught curriculum) matched the pupils (the received curriculum), there was corroborating evidence to support the reliability of these results. The ways in which the teachers and pupils results for this section were compared is described in more detail in the following chapter (section 6.7). In addition to the planned mechanism for triangulation described above, the pupils additional comments at the end of the questionnaires provided another, limited, opportunity for triangulation. The small sample of comments from each year provided further evidence about their views of mathematics and the teaching approaches that they had experienced. Had these comments been treated on their own, problems might have been expected with validity (like the teachers responses to Section 2, referred to in the paragraph above). However, there was an opportunity for triangulation through comparing the broad sweep of these comments with the main outcomes from the project. This was most marked for the results concerning attitudes. Section 8.7 deals with the pupils comments and their contribution to the overall findings of this project. 5.14 Ethics This research project was designed not to interfere with the school curriculum or diminish pupils opportunities to learn. To achieve this end the questionnaire was designed to take only a few minutes to complete. An explanatory message (see appendix 5.14) was read to the pupils before they started the questionnaire. They were informed why their responses were sought and that their responses were anonymous, unless they chose to identify themselves. In either case, each questionnaire was to be treated in strict confidence so that it would have no affect on the pupils school career. I chose not to collate the relevant attendance data for the days that the questionnaires were completed, as I did not wish to identify respondents with their responses. The pupils were given no indication that their participation was optional, as I wanted as many responses as possible. However, since I had no record of the attendance on these days, I would have been unable to identify which (if any) pupils had chosen not to participate. (Several of the returned scripts were only partially completed. I could not tell how many were returned blank.) I wished to be able to analyse the responses by teaching group. This implied that it would be possible to identify teachers individual responses. The explanatory message informed teachers that the information was sought purely for research purposes. Notwithstanding that strict anonymity was impossible, I reassured them that their responses would be treated in confidence and that no professional judgements would be made about them as a result of their responses. After one of her classes had returned their questionnaires, one teacher was concerned that some of her pupils might have made derogatory comments about her. I assured her that I would take no account of offensive or insulting comments (of which there were very few). However, in accordance with my guarantees of anonymity to the respondents, I was unable to identify those pupils making offensive comments. I noted all of the pupils comments that were relevant to my research areas. I treated all of these comments consistently. Some pupils made comments that, in normal circumstances, would have received a response from me (such as requests for a change of set or teacher). To preserve the anonymity of those pupils who had not identified themselves on their scripts, and in accordance with the promises I had made to the teachers, I did not act on any of these comments. To protect teacher-pupil relationships and out of concern for the feelings of both the pupils and the teachers, the wording of the items was checked carefully. Care was taken to ensure that none of the test items were expressed in such a way as to either cause offence or distress, or to be seen as biased or overtly value-laden. To ensure this, the questionnaire was approved by the mathematics department, the Head of Year 9 and the Head of Key Stage 3 before the pilot. For example, in one item mother was replaced by parents / carers in line with school policy and in recognition of the fact that several pupils did not have a mother. CHAPTER SIX ANALYSIS OF THE 2001 RESEARCH DATA The data for this research project were collected from Y8 pupils and teachers in April 2001 and March 2002. I will consider the 2001 results in this chapter. (In the next chapter (chapter 7), I will analyse the 2002 results: followed by a comparison of the results in chapter 8.) Since TIMSS results are available for section 1, I will compare the section 1 data from this project with the TIMSS results. I will compare the teachers responses to section 2 with those of the pupils. 6.1 Measures Throughout the following analysis, I have analysed the results for the whole population. For section 2 items, where the responses may vary from class to class, I have also analysed the responses by teaching group For each questionnaire item, I have calculated the mean of the Likert responses. I have described mean scores of less than 2.5 as positive (corresponding to agreement with the statement of the questionnaire item). Other mean scores are described as negative. The group of responses strongly agree or agree (Likert scores 1 & 2) are described as positive. Similarly, the complementary group of responses is described as negative. For each questionnaire item, I have stated the proportion of respondents in the positive category. 6.2 2001 Data 2001 Pupil Data (sample size 380)  EMBED Excel.Sheet.8  Table 6.2 (More detailed results for the pupils in 2001 are given in appendix 6.2.) For these results, a mean score of less than 2.5 is consistent with a positive response to the item. Similarly, a score in the 1 & 2 category greater than 50% is also considered to be a positive response. These results were tested against the null hypothesis that positive and negative responses were equally likely to be recorded. With the exception of the six questions listed below, all of the remaining results were significant in both measures (i.e. there is strong evidence that all of the other responses indicate genuine positive and negative responses). Q3 To do well in mathematics at school you need lots of hard work studying at home Q4 To do well in mathematics at school you need to memorise the textbook or notes Q13 Maths is boring Q33 We demonstrate our working to the rest of the class (e.g. on the board) Q39 In the lesson, the teacher asks the whole class questions about the work we are doing Q42 We use things from everyday life in solving mathematics problems For each of these items, approximately half of the sample responded positively. The lack of significance in the results for these six items may reflect either: real variability in the opinions and teaching practices being investigated, or an arbitrariness in the pupils responses (possibly as a result of ambiguous wording of the items). Three of these items concern the pupils affective responses to mathematics and the other three concern teaching approaches. Whereas one would not necessarily expect there to be a high degree of consistency in the pupils opinions about mathematics, one might expect there to be some uniformity in the teaching approaches employed across a mathematics department. Since these items on teaching approaches appear to be clearly worded and two of them were not identified as problematic at the pilot stage (question 39 was reworded as a result of the pilot, see section 5.12), it seems likely that these particular results may reflect variable practice across the department (always more likely in a large department than in a small one). 6.3 Section 1 2001 Comparison with TIMSS QQ1Q2Q3Q4Q5Q6Q7Q8Q9200165%57%52%47%63%90%71%37%84%TIMSS79%71%92%49%81%98%91%30%91%sigsigsigsigsigsigsigsigQQ10Q11Q12Q13Q14Q15Q16Q17Q18200183%37%36%52%23%88%14%68%78%TIMSS86%49%85%30%51%98%29%80%93%sigsigsigsigsigsigsigsig Table 6.3 (The details of this analysis are contained in appendix 6.3) Chart 6.3 (The blue dots represent the paired proportions for each item, the line (y=x) represents the theoretical line where the TIMSS proportion is the same as in the 2001 results.) As the above table and chart show, the TIMSS responses had consistently higher positive proportions than the 2001 sample from this research project. From the research project, only two items (Q8 and Q13) had higher positive response rates than TIMSS. Question 8 was maths is an easy subject and question 13 was maths is boring. A test of proportions was carried out for these results; all the proportions (apart from in questions 4 and 10) were significantly different from the TIMSS proportions. Since section 1 is concerned with pupils attitudes to mathematics, it may be concluded that the pupils in this sample generally expressed a more negative view of mathematics than was the case in the TIMSS survey. The only exception was in the responses to question 8, where a higher proportion of pupils (38% as opposed to 30%) claimed that mathematics is an easy subject. This inconsistency with the TIMSS results may be indicative of a relatively negative attitude to mathematics in the sample, however, in the evaluation of this research project (chapter 9, section 9.6), I will discuss the validity of the TIMSS attitude results and the possibility that the TIMSS results may not be as relevant to this project as I had initially assumed. 6.4 Section 1 Clusters In Chapter 5, I described how both sections of the questionnaire could be analysed in terms of clusters. In the following tables, the 2001 results for each cluster have been aggregated for the whole sample, and for males and females. A more detailed analysis of the data is provided in appendix 6.4. Cluster A comprises two items: Q1 How much do you like mathematics? Q18 I usually do well in mathematics at school. As I explained in section 5.8, this cluster can be described as being about the rewarding outcomes of mathematics at school. 1 Cluster AAll 2001Females 2001Males 2001mean2.222.302.14proportion61%54%68%Table 6.4a There were significant differences between the genders in both means and proportions. It may be inferred that, in this population, the boys responses indicated that they found mathematics more rewarding than did the girls. Cluster B was taken directly from TIMSS and was used to indicate pupils attitudes to mathematics (Keys et al: 72, 124). It comprises five items: Q5 I enjoy learning maths Q8 Maths is an easy subject Q9 Maths is important in everyones life Q11 I would like a job involving maths Q13 Maths is boring. Because of the way question 13 was phrased, the scores for this item have been reversed (i.e. 1 and 4 swapped and 2 and 3 swapped) so that the scoring of the items in the cluster is consistent. 1 Cluster BAll 2001Females 2001Males 2001mean2.442.512.37proportion56%49%61%Table 6.4b In this case the there was a significant difference between the genders in proportions and means, lending support to the notion the boys had a more positive attitude to mathematics than did the girls. The overall percentage expressing a positive attitude to maths was 56%, this compares with the TIMSS result for English pupils of 82% (Beaton et al, 1996: 128). This is not only statistically significant (with a z-value greater than 18), it is also educationally significant in that there is strong evidence that the pupils in this sample have a markedly less positive to mathematics than that reported for the pupils in the TIMSS national sample. (Of course, as I have noted, it is possible that the TIMSS results may be misleading: I will discuss this in section 9.6.) Cluster C concerns beliefs about the contributions that personal attributes and characteristics make to success in mathematics. It comprises four items: Q3 To do well in mathematics at school you need lots of hard work studying at home Q4 To do well in mathematics at school you need to memorise the textbook or notes Q14 To do well in mathematics at school you need lots of natural talent Q16 To do well in mathematics at school you need good luck. As in Cluster B, the scores for items 14 and 16 have been reversed so that the scoring of the responses to these items is consistent. Under this re-scaling, a positive response may be seen as indicating that the respondent believes that the success in mathematics depends on effort, rather than luck or natural ability. 1 Cluster CAll 2001Females 2001Males 2001mean2.212.232.19proportion68%65%72%Table 6.4c This table indicates that, on the whole, pupils from the 2001 sample were more inclined to attribute success in mathematics to approaches to study, rather than to circumstances beyond their control (such as luck and natural ability). There were no significant differences between the boys results and the girls results. When the responses to the individual test items are considered (see table 6.2), it can be seen that the pupils responses to items 3 and 4 are reasonably neutral (the mean scores and proportions are around 2.5 and 50% respectively). The responses to items 14 and 16 have high means and low proportions. This pattern of responses suggests an ambivalence about the value of hard work combined with a clear recognition that success in mathematics is not just a matter of luck and inherited abilities. Cluster D is concerned with parents, friends and the respondents views (respectively) about the importance of doing well in mathematics at school. It consists of three items: Q6 My parents/carers think it is important for me to do well in mathematics at school Q12 Most of my friends think it is important to do well in mathematics at school Q15 I think it is important for me to do well in mathematics at school. 1 Cluster DAll 2001Females 2001Males 2001mean2.12.122.06proportion84%85%84%Table 6.4d It is reasonable to assume that most parents are keen for their children to be successful. Therefore, it is likely that at least one of the three responses to this cluster will be positive. Consequently, the positive nature of the means and proportions of the cluster is to be expected and is not very informative. However individual strongly positive or negative scores may be an indication of the support for learning mathematics from within the respondents social circle. Across the cluster, the results for boys and girls are similar. Q6Q12Q15Overall mean1.752.731.83Overall proportion90%36%88%Girls mean1.812.661.89Girls proportion89%37%90%Boys mean1.702.741.76Boys proportion93%35%87%Table 6.4d1 When the overall responses to the individual items of the cluster are considered (see table 6.4d1), those to items 6 and 15 were strongly positive, whereas the response to item 12 (about friends views of the importance of doing well in mathematics) was negative. This pattern is common to both boys and girls; there is no appreciable difference in the responses for the genders (apart from question 15 for which the boys mean was significantly lower see appendix 6.4d1). It is interesting to note that across the sample population, the respondents generally expressed a desire to do well in mathematics themselves but the results indicate that they felt that their friends did not share this desire. However, it is likely that a large proportion of their friends will have been included in the sample. This may be explained by a peer-group tendency to play down the importance of success in mathematics (or other academic subjects). Cluster E is concerned with reasons for doing well in mathematics. The reasons discussed in the test items are to please ones parents, to please oneself, to continue ones education and to get a job. All of these are motivating factors for doing mathematics. This cluster consists of four questions: Q2 I need to do well in mathematics to please my parent(s) Q7 I need to do well in mathematics to please myself Q10 I need to do well in mathematics to get into the college or university I prefer Q17 I need to do well in mathematics to get the job I want. 1 Cluster EAll 2001Females 2001Males 2001mean2.082.152.04proportion69%65%73%Table 6.4e Again, the cluster results are consistent across the genders. The table below details the responses to individual questions. Q2Q7Q10Q17Overall means2.392.121.792.07Overall proportions57%71%83%68%Girls means2.532.161.772.16Girls proportions 49%71%84%66%Boys means2.262.111.822.01Boys proportions65%71%82%69%Table 6.4e1 There is a statistically significant difference between the boys and the girls results for question 2. This was the statement in this cluster attracting the least agreement. In this item, fewer than half of the girls, but nearly two thirds of the boys agreed that they needed to do well in mathematics to please their parents. These results may reflect a societal expectation for boys to do well in maths, however this cannot be safely inferred from the available data. There is no appreciable difference between the genders in their responses to the other items (see appendix 6.4e1). When the items in this cluster are ranked in order of agreement there is a consistent pattern across the genders. In their responses to question 10, more than 80% of the sample agreed that they needed to do well in mathematics in order to go to college or university. The next most popular reason was to please themselves (item 7), then to get a job (item 17). Pleasing their parents (item 2) was the least popular reason. 6.5 Section 2 2001 For section 2, I will discuss the individual results (see table 6.2 and appendix 6.2), before concentrating upon the clusters (unlike Section 1, these are not analysed separately by gender). At the beginning of this chapter (section 6.2), I noted that there is strong evidence of genuine positive and negative responses in all bar three of the Section 2 results: Q33 We demonstrate our working to the rest of the class Q39 In the lesson, the teacher asks the whole class questions about the work we are doing Q42 We use things from everyday life in solving mathematics problems. It is interesting to note that all three of these items were carefully re-worded after being identified in the pilot as having unclear meanings (Wilson 2001). One word that may still cause confusion in question 33 is demonstrate, which was retained because of its very specific use in the Strategy (DfEE, 2001: 26). Of the significant results, the following four items attracted the highest proportions of positive responses. Q20 The teacher shows us how to do mathematics problems Q22 We all do the same work in the lesson Q24 We work from worksheets or textbooks on our own Q41 We all work on the same topics. Before the Strategy, lessons in which the teacher showed the class what to do, followed up by work for the whole class from textbooks or worksheets were common. Thus, the high agreement rates for these items is unsurprising. There were three items with strongly negative responses. Q28 As a class, we discuss what we have learned in the lesson Q30 The teacher sets different work for some students Q38 Our lessons are split into three parts, a beginning, a middle and an end. We have different things to do in each part of the lesson. These concern discussing what has been learned, differentiation and the three-part lesson. Although these approaches to teaching were not unknown before the advent of the Strategy, they represent important aspects of the approaches to teaching recommended in the Framework. 6.6 Section 2 Clusters Cluster A concerns starters and consists of three questions: Q26 We start the lesson by carrying on with work from the previous lesson Q27 There is a mental mathematics starter for the whole class Q38 Our lessons are split into three parts, a beginning, a middle and an end. We have different things to do in each part of the lesson. In calculating the mean of the cluster, the coding of item 26 was reversed (so that Likert responses of 1 and 4 are swapped, as are those for 2 and 3). This makes the Likert responses to the three items consistent. Q26Q27Q38Cluster meanMeans2.133.023.463.12Proportions62%21%9%10%Table 6.6a 62% of the responses to question 26 were positive, as was the mean. The item was phrased in such a way that a positive response indicated the absence of starters. As I noted at the beginning of this section, the responses to question 38 were strongly negative. Only 9% of those responding indicated that lessons were in the three-part format (which incorporates a starter); 88% gave negative responses to this item. The one item in this cluster directly addressing starters (Q27) attracted positive responses from 21% of the respondents. These results are not unexpected, as the three-part format for lessons is a feature of the Strategy, and this population had not been affected by the Strategy. Hence, although the use of starters was identified by only a minority of pupils, the results indicate that mental mathematics at the beginning of lessons (for example mental arithmetic at the start of some lessons) was not unusual either. Cluster B (questions 29 and 37) concerns the teacher explaining the objectives of the lesson and consists of two questions: Q29 We know what the teacher wants us to learn about in the lesson Q37 The teacher explains to us what we are going to learn in the lesson. Q29Q37Cluster meanMean2.051.992.02Proportion66%65%68%Table 6.6b The responses to these items are consistent. Approximately two-thirds of the population indicated that it was common for their mathematics teachers to inform the class of the lesson objectives. Cluster C is the largest cluster of items, as it addresses direct interactive teaching, the principal teaching approach recommended by the Framework. This cluster consists of eighteen items: Q19 At the end of the lesson, the teacher sums up what our class has learned Q20 The teacher shows us how to do mathematics problems Q23 At the end of the lesson we discuss the progress we have made Q24 We work from worksheets or textbooks on our own Q28 As a class, we discuss what we have learned in the lesson Q29 We know what the teacher wants us to learn about in the lesson Q31 The teacher gets the whole class to discuss our work Q32 the teacher links our work up to other topics and other subjects Q33 We demonstrate our working to the rest of the class (e.g. on the board) Q34 We discuss our mistakes with the class Q35 We explain our methods to the rest of the class Q37 The teacher explains to us what we are going to learn in the lesson Q39 In the lesson, the teacher asks the whole class questions about the work we are doing Q40 The teacher discusses common mathematics mistakes with the whole class Q42 We use things from everyday life in solving mathematics problems Q43 The teacher discusses the mathematics we are doing with the whole class Q44 The teacher demonstrates the mathematics we are learning to the whole class Q45 At the end of the lesson, the teacher goes over the mathematics we have learned. The scoring for item 24 was reversed when it was used in the cluster mean; this makes it consistent with the Likert scoring for each of the other items. Q19Q20Q23Q24Q28Q29Q31Q32Q33Q34Mean2.951.793.231.613.212.052.953.012.653.01Proportion25%83%21%86%16%66%29%23%42%24%Q35Q37Q39Q40Q42Q43Q44Q45MeanMean2.741.992.542.352.351.761.742.872.58Proportion35%65%41%55%54%75%75%28%45%Table 6.6c As I noted at the beginning of this section, items 33, 39 and 42 are medial and indicate neither positive nor negative responses. Items 20 and 24 have strongly positive responses and 28 has a strong negative response. Ignoring items 33, 39 and 42, the items can be split into two groups, negative and positive. The positive items (20, 24, 29, 37, 40 and 44) mainly concern the teacher showing the class what to do and how to do it. These are approaches to teaching that one would have expected to be common before the advent of the Strategy. Of the negative items (19, 23, 28, 31, 32, 34, 35 and 43), six concern class discussions, the others concern summarising the lesson and making links with other subjects. Taken overall, the responses to this cluster indicate that some aspects of direct interactive teaching (especially the teachers didactic role) were identified by the pupils as being used regularly. However, other aspects of direct interactive teaching (particularly whole-class discussion) were not generally acknowledged as being common. Cluster D concerns all of the pupils doing the same work. There are two items in this cluster: Q22 We all do the same work in the lesson Q41 We all work on the same topic. These responses may also be considered in relation to the responses to item 30, the teacher sets different work for some students. Q22Q41Cluster meanQ30Means1.461.331.403.30Proportions91%87%92%11%Table 6.6d The proportions of pupils giving positive responses to questions 22 and 41 are high and reasonably consistent. Likewise, the means for each item are both strongly positive, despite the fact that the difference between the means for the two items is significant at the 5% significance level. The responses to the two cluster items indicate that in the majority of lessons, all members of the class work on the same topic. This analysis is supported by comparison with the related item (question 30 concerned with the teacher setting different work for different pupils). Both the mean and the proportion of question 30 are negative, and therefore are consistent with the other items in the cluster. (This may also be viewed as an indication that approaches to differentiation through the use of different tasks were not widely identified by the pupils.) The theme underlying Cluster E is group-work. The two items associated with this cluster are phrased oppositely: Q24 We work from worksheets or textbooks on our own Q25 We work together in pairs or small groups. A negative response to question 24 can be viewed as an indication that group-work occurs regularly, whereas, for question 25, the positive responses can be seen as indicating regular group-work. For the cluster mean, the responses to question 24 have been adjusted to be consistent with question 25. Q24Q25Cluster meanMean1.612.763.07Proportion86%33%9%Table 6.6e The responses to this cluster indicate that the pupils do not recognise group-work as being a regular feature of lessons. Cluster F concerns the discussion of mistakes and misconceptions and consists of two items: Q34 We discuss our mistakes with the class Q40 The teacher discusses common mathematics mistakes with the whole class. Q34Q40Cluster meanMean3.012.352.68Proportion24%55%27%Table 6.6f The two items in this cluster are worded slightly differently. Although both refer to discussing mistakes with the class, question 34 refers to the class discussing mistakes, whereas the statement of question 40 refers to the teacher discussing mistakes. As the above table indicates, the responses to question 34 are negative and those to question 40 are positive. Thus, it appears from the pattern of pupils responses that the teacher discusses errors and misconceptions more often than the pupils do. (This is consistent with the analysis of Cluster C, where it was noted that class discussion was not identified as a regular part of classroom practice). The three proportions recorded in the table above may appear confusing. As I mentioned in chapter 5 on methods, the process of determining the proportion of positive cluster means is problematic. In my analysis, I have decided to call a cluster mean positive if it is less than 2.5. In a cluster with two items there may be many cluster means of 2.5, this may produce some unexpected figures. In this cluster, there were 99 such values. Had these been classified as positive, then the positive proportion for the cluster mean would have been 54% instead of 27%. Hence, for small clusters, the positive proportion may not be helpful. This is true of other clusters considered in this account (especially those with just two items). Cluster G concerns feedback, where the teacher reports back to the pupils on their progress and learning in the lesson. This cluster consists of two questions: Q23 At the end of the lesson, the teacher sums up what our class has learned Q28 As a class, we discuss what we have learned in the lesson. Q23Q28Cluster meanMean3.233.213.22Proportion21%16%9%Table 6.6g As can be seen from the table, the pupils responses to these items are consistently negative. This may be taken as an indication that teachers feeding back to the pupils was not a regular feature of lessons. Cluster H concerns the teacher summarising the lesson at the end and consists of two items: Q19 At the end of the lesson, the teacher sums up what our class has learned Q45 At the end of the lesson, the teacher goes over the mathematics we have learned. Q19Q45Cluster meanMean2.952.872.90Proportion25%28%21%Table 6.6h The results for the two items are reasonably consistent and negative. Only about a quarter of the respondents indicated that it was a common occurrence for the teacher to summarise the lesson. Cluster I is concerned with the teacher making links and connections with other topics and subjects. It consists of two questions: Q32 The teacher links our work up to other topics and other subjects Q42 We use things from everyday life in solving mathematics problems. Q32Q42Cluster meanMean3.012.352.68Proportion23%54%28%Table 6.6i The results for the two items are quite different. For question 32 the results are negative, whereas those for question 42 show a slight tendency to be positive (however, as noted earlier, these responses were not positive enough to be statistically significant). The wording of the two questions was rather different. Question 32 refers to making links with other topics and other subjects, whereas question 42 refers to using examples from everyday life, not necessarily from other areas of the curriculum. From the evidence available, it is impossible to determine whether the difference in the responses can be attributed to pupils distinguishing between these two statements. (The lack of statistical significance of the positive responses to question 42 may suggest that the item was not understood properly and thus elicited arbitrary responses). Cluster J is concerned with there being a clearly defined end to the lesson. It consists of five items: Q19 At the end of the lesson, the teacher sums up what our class has learned Q21 We have a finishing off activity at the end of the lesson Q23 At the end of the lesson we discuss the progress we have made Q38 Our lessons are split into three parts, a beginning, a middle and an end. We have different things to do in each part of the lesson Q45 At the end of the lesson, the teacher goes over the mathematics we have learned. Q19Q21Q23Q38Q45MeanMeans2.952.993.233.462.873.10Proportions25%25%21%9%28%15%Table 6.6j This cluster consists of items that contribute to other clusters (only question 21 addresses the general issue of end of lesson activities). However, (with the exception of question 38 which refers to all of the components of the three part lesson), the response patterns are very similar and negative. Broadly speaking, only about a quarter of the pupils in the sample indicated that end of lesson activities were common practice. Cluster K concerns mental and oral work in lessons. It consists of seven items: Q27 There is a mental mathematics starter for the whole class Q31 The teacher gets the whole class to discuss our work Q34 We discuss our mistakes with the class Q35 We explain our methods to the rest of the class Q36 We do mental mathematics during the lesson Q39 In the lesson, the teacher asks the whole class questions about the work we are doing Q40 The teacher discusses common mistakes with the whole class. As in Cluster J, many of these items appear in other clusters. Like question 42 in Cluster I, the responses to question 39 are too evenly balanced for them to be described as either positive or negative. Q27Q31Q34Q35Q36Q39Q40MeanMeans3.022.953.012.742.702.542.352.75Proportions21%29%24%35%34%41%55%31%Table 6.6k With the exception of question 40, the responses are negative. (Ignoring the evenly balanced responses to question 39, a third, or fewer, of pupils provided positive responses.) The responses to question 40 (the teacher discuses common mathematical mistakes with the whole class) had a slight tendency to be positive. It is possible that the teacher discusses may be interpreted as the teacher talks about, which may explain the apparent discrepancy between the results; from these results, it is impossible to determine whether this is the case. Generalising from these responses, there is some indication that the majority of pupils did not consider mental and oral mathematics to be a common feature of maths lessons, although a sizeable minority (25% to 30%) did. 6.7 Teachers Results To help triangulate the Section 2 data, the teachers responses were compared with the class response for each item (see appendix 6.7a). In April 2001, questionnaires were not received from three teachers, so the data are based on fourteen sets of teacher responses. This is, of course, a small sample population, so it is unwise to infer too much from it. For each item, the level of agreement between the overall class response and the teachers response is recorded in appendix 6.7b. Table 6.7, on the following page, compares the overall teacher responses to section 2 with the overall pupil responses. Question192021222324252627Teacher mean2.211.212.791.642.212.002.362.502.43Teacher proportion53%82%18%76%47%76%47%41%35%Pupil mean2.951.792.991.463.231.612.762.133.02Pupil proportion25%83%25%91%21%86%33%62%21%Question282930313233343536Teacher mean2.071.292.502.142.572.292.572.501.79Teacher proportion47%82%41%59%41%59%35%41%65%Pupil mean3.212.053.302.953.012.653.012.742.70Pupil proportion16%66%11%29%23%42%24%35%34%Question373839404142434445Teacher mean1.362.361.361.711.432.071.501.502.07Teacher proportion76%53%76%76%82%59%76%82%59%Pupil mean1.993.462.542.351.332.351.761.742.87Pupil proportion65%9%41%55%87%54%75%75%28%Table 6.7 A brief inspection of the table reveals that the teacher means were generally lower than the pupil means and the teacher proportions were generally higher than the pupil proportions (i.e. the teachers responses were, on the whole, more positive). This was not unexpected, since the teachers may well have been more inclined to emphasise the variety of their teaching approaches, especially those that they associated with the Numeracy Strategy in KS2. The pupils, on the other hand, could be expected to have neither the teachers awareness of the KS2 Strategy, nor the degree of critical awareness necessary to detect subtleties of teaching style. Appendix 6.7b analyses the level of agreement between the teachers responses and the overall pupil responses for each item (i.e. where a teachers Likert response has the same positive or negative charge as the majority of the class). These data were available for 14 classes. Using a binomial test for significance with the null hypothesis that the chance of agreement is one half, critical values (of 2 and 12 agreements) were established at the 5% significance level. It is important to note that a significant level of agreement indicates a consistency of response between the teacher and the class for that item, and does not imply that all of the classes and teachers responses were the same for that item. What it does indicate is that, generally, the charge of the teachers responses agreed with the charge for their classes for that item (some could be in positive agreement, some in negative agreement). In only seven of the 27 items were there significant levels of agreement between the pupils and the teachers responses for their classes. These items were: Q20 The teacher shows us how to do mathematics problems Q22 We all do the same work in the lesson Q24 We all work from worksheets or textbooks on our own Q29 We know what the teacher wants us to learn about in the lesson Q41 We all work on the same topic Q43 The teacher discusses the mathematics we are doing with the whole class Q44 The teacher demonstrates the mathematics we are learning to the whole class. These were also the seven items with the strongest positive responses from the sample of teachers. Of these items, questions 20, 22, 24 and 41 (concerning approaches to teaching where the teacher tells the class what to do and then sets work from textbooks or worksheets) were identified earlier in this chapter as having attracted the strongest responses from the pupils. The data from the teachers supports the pupils responses for these items. Items 29, 43 and 44 concern the teacher informing the class about the objectives of the lessons and discussing mathematics. Although not significant, in a further six items the teachers and pupils responses agreed for the majority of classes. Q21 We have a finishing off activity at the end of the lesson Q26 We start the lesson by carrying on with our work from the previous lesson Q27 There is a mental mathematics starter for the whole class Q37 The teacher explains to us what we are going to learn in the lesson Q40 The teacher discusses common mathematical mistakes with the whole class Q42 We use thing from everyday life in solving mathematical problems. Ten of the items had agreement rates of less than 50%, though none were significant. Q23 At the end of the lesson we discuss the progress we have made Q25 We work together in pairs or small groups Q28 As a class, we discuss what we have learned in the lesson Q30 The teacher sets different work for some students Q31 The teacher gets the whole class to discuss our work Q32 The teacher links our work up to other topics and other subjects Q33 We demonstrate our working to the rest of the class (e.g. on the board) Q38 Our lessons are split into three parts, a beginning, a middle and an end. We have different things to do in each part of the lesson Q39 In the lesson, the teacher asks the whole class questions about the work we are doing Q45 At the end of the lesson, the teacher goes over the mathematics we have learned These items covered many aspects of the three-part lesson and direct interactive teaching. In particular, these responses indicate that, from the teachers perspective, the three-part lesson structure and class discussion were more common than was indicated by the pupils results. In summary, the data from the teachers confirms the prevalence of a style of teaching in which the teacher tells the pupils what to do and asks them to work from textbooks and work sheets. There is some agreement between teachers and pupils that the teacher discusses the work with the class, however (as noted earlier in this chapter) the teacher discusses may be interpreted by pupils as the teacher talks about. The teachers results indicate that some caution should be exercised in drawing inferences from items 23, 25, 28, 30, 31, 32, 33, 38, 39 and 45 (listed in the paragraph above). 6.8 Summary of the 2001 Data Section 1 Pupils attitudes to mathematics The pupils responses were consistently less positive than the English sample in the TIMSS research. In terms of measures of attitude to maths, the boys were more positive than the girls. Using TIMSS measures, the percentage of pupils in the sample expressing a positive attitude to mathematics was 56%, compared with 82% in the TIMSS sample. There is an indication that the pupils believed their peers to consider success in mathematics to be less important than they did. This may have some influence on their public behaviour in relation to learning mathematics. Nearly two thirds of the boys, but fewer than half of the girls indicated that they wished to do well in mathematics to please their parents. This may reflect gender stereotyping; different expectations of and from boys and girls. Section 2 Mathematics Lessons Both the pupils and teachers responses indicated that a classroom approach where the teacher explains and demonstrates the mathematics to be learned, followed by work from textbooks and worksheets was common. There was little evidence from the pupils responses of the use of three-part lessons, discussion of what has been learned and differentiation. However, the teachers responses indicated that these approaches were more common than was indicated by the pupils results. Although there was some evidence of the use of starters, the results indicate that this was relatively uncommon. About two-thirds of the pupils indicated that their teachers informed them of the objectives for their lessons. Some aspects of direct interactive teaching were identified as being used regularly (especially those aspects that concern the teacher in instructing, explaining and demonstrating). However, other aspects of direct interactive teaching (particularly whole-class discussion) were not generally acknowledged as being common. In the majority of lessons, all of the pupils worked on the same topic. Group work was not a regular feature of lessons. There is an indication that mistakes and misconceptions are discussed, but by the teacher, rather than as a class activity. Feeding back to pupils on their progress was not identified as a regular classroom activity. In only about a quarter of pupils responses was summarising the lesson at the end identified as a regular activity. No inferences can be drawn from the pupils responses about the regularity with which mathematics lessons are contextualised by making links and connections to other topics and subject areas. About a quarter of the pupils responses indicate that their lessons regularly have clearly defined endings. The majority of responses indicated that mental and oral mathematics was not a common feature of maths lessons, although a sizeable minority (25% to 30%) did. This suggests mixed practice across the year group The teachers responses were more inclined to be positive than the pupils responses. There were seven items (out of 27) for which there was significant agreement between the teachers and the pupils responses. The teaching approaches identified by these items coincide with those described in part 1 of this summary (see above). CHAPTER SEVEN ANALYSIS OF THE 2002 RESEARCH DATA The data used in this chapter were collected in March 2002. The data for Section 1 came from the pupils only. Pupils and teachers provided data for Section 2. The structure of this chapter will be the same as the previous chapter. I will analyse the results for Section 1 first and compare them with the TIMSS results. I will then analyse the pupils responses to Section 2 and compare them with the teachers responses. (There will be a comparison of the 2001 and the 2002 results in the next chapter). The statistical measures used in this chapter are the same as those used in the previous chapter. 7.1 2002 DATA The mean scores for each item and the positive proportions (see section 6.1) are given in the table on the following page. 2002 Pupil Data (sample size 331)  EMBED Excel.Sheet.8  Table 7.1 (More detailed results for the pupils in 2002 are given in appendix 7.1.) As in the previous chapter, a mean score of less than 2.5 is treated as a positive response to the item. Similarly, a score in the 1 & 2 category greater than 50% is also considered to be a positive response. Like the 2001 results, these results were tested against the null hypothesis that positive and negative responses were equally likely to be recorded (these results are contained in appendix 7.1). Apart from the seven questions listed below, all of the remaining results (either positive or negative) were significant in both measures (i.e. there is strong evidence that all of the other responses indicate genuine positive and negative responses). Q4 To do well in mathematics at school you need to memorise the textbook or notes Q12 Most of my friends think it is important to do well in mathematics at school Q13 Maths is boring Q26 We start the lesson by carrying on with our work from the previous lesson Q33 We demonstrate our working to the rest of the class (e.g. on the board) Q35 We explain our methods to the rest of the class Q39 In the lesson, the teacher asks the whole class questions about the work we are doing. For the previous cohort (2001), all, but six of the results were significant. Among these six were questions 4, 13, 33, 39 (included in the list above). The two others were: Q3 To do well in mathematics at school you need lots of hard work studying at home Q42 We use things from everyday life in solving mathematics problems. As I discussed in the previous chapter (section 6.2), one might expect more variability (and therefore less of a tendency to significant results) in the responses to the attitudes questions than in the teaching approaches questions. Of the medial results to the items concerning teaching approaches listed above, only question 39 was reworded after being identified as ambiguous in the pilot. (Note that, for both years, the responses to questions 4, 13, 33 and 39 were not significant.) As discussed in the previous chapter this may indicate either: that these items attracted arbitrary responses or the variable use teaching approaches across the department. However, neither of these conclusions can be inferred from the data. 7.2 Section 1 2002 Comparison with TIMSS QQ1Q2Q3Q4Q5Q6Q7Q8Q9200268%61%59%46%65%92%79%42%88%TIMSS79%71%92%49%81%98%91%30%91%sigsigsigsigsigsigsigsigQQ10Q11Q12Q13Q14Q15Q16Q17Q18200290%39%48%52%31%92%12%72%80%TIMSS86%49%85%30%51%98%29%80%93%sigsigsigsigsigsigsigsigTable 7.2 (Details of this analysis are contained in Appendix 7.2)  (Chart 7.2) (The blue dots represent the paired proportions for each item, the line (y=x) represents the theoretical line where the TIMSS proportion is the same as in the 2002 results.) A test of proportions was carried out for these results. Apart from three questions Q8 Maths is an easy subject Q10 I need to do well in mathematics to get into the college or university I prefer Q13 Maths is boring, the TIMSS responses had consistently higher positive proportions than the 2002 sample from this research project (as in 2001). The 2002 positive response proportions for questions 8 and 13 were significantly higher than the TIMSS proportion, whereas that for question 10 was higher but not significant. This is illustrated in the table and chart above. Since section 1 is concerned with pupils attitudes to mathematics, these data may be seen as an indication that the pupils in this sample generally expressed a more negative view of mathematics than was the case in the TIMSS national survey. As I noted in the previous chapter (section 6. 3), this may indicate a relatively negative attitude to mathematics in this sample (and the first sample). It must be borne in mind however, that comparison of the sample results with the TIMSS results may have been less appropriate than I had initially assumed when I planned the project. I will discuss this in chapter 9 (section 9.6). 7.3 Section 1 Clusters As with the 2001 results, the 2002 results for each cluster have been aggregated for the whole sample, and for males and females. These results are presented in separate tables. A more detailed analysis of the data for the clusters is provided in appendix 7.3. Cluster A, about the rewarding outcomes of school mathematics, comprises two items: Q1 How much do you like mathematics? Q18 I usually do well in mathematics at school. 1 Cluster AAll 2002Females 2002Males 2002mean2.192.192.18proportion64%65%64%Table 7.3a This year, there were no significant differences between the genders in both means and proportions (see appendix 7.3). Thus, unlike the 2001 sample, there is no evidence from the 2002 sample that the boys found mathematics more rewarding than the girls did. Cluster B consists of the five TIMSS items on attitude (with the scoring for item 13 reversed, as described previously). Q5 I enjoy learning maths Q8 Maths is an easy subject Q9 Maths is important in everyones life Q11 I would like a job involving maths Q13 Maths is boring. 1 Cluster BAll 2002Females 2002Males 2002mean2.392.392.39proportion59%57%61%Table 7.3b For the 2002 sample, there was no significant difference between the genders in proportions and means, unlike the previous year. The overall percentage expressing a positive attitude to maths was 59%, a slight increase upon the previous year, but still low (and highly significant too, z = -10.5) compared with the TIMSS result for English pupils of 82% (Beaton et al, 1996: 128). (As I mentioned earlier, I will review the relevance of the TIMSS results in chapter 9, section 9.6.) Cluster C concerns personal attributes and characteristics and their relationship to success in mathematics. It comprises four items: Q3 To do well in mathematics at school you need lots of hard work studying at home Q4 To do well in mathematics at school you need to memorise the textbook or notes Q14 To do well in mathematics at school you need lots of natural talent Q16 To do well in mathematics at school you need good luck. (In this cluster, the scores to items 14 and 16 have been reversed for consistency.) A positive response to this cluster may be seen as indicating that the respondent believes that the success in mathematics depends on effort, rather than luck or natural ability. 1 Cluster CAll 2002Females 2002Males 2002mean2.242.242.22proportion67%68%67%Table 7.3c This indicates that, as in the previous year, pupils from the 2002 sample were more inclined to attribute success in mathematics to approaches to study, rather than to circumstances beyond their control (such as luck and natural ability). This interpretation is supported by an analysis of the responses to the individual items comprising this cluster (see table 7.1). There were no significant differences between the boys results and the girls results for the cluster and for the individual cluster items (see appendix 7.3c1). Cluster D is concerned with parents, friends and the respondents views (respectively) about the importance of doing well in mathematics at school. It consists of three items: Q6 My parents/carers think it is important for me to do well in mathematics at school Q12 Most of my friends think it is important to do well in mathematics at school Q15 I think it is important for me to do well in mathematics at school. 1 Cluster DAll 2002Females 2002Males 2002mean2.022.041.98proportion87%88%88%Table 7.3d In the previous chapter (section 6.4, p100), I noted that the means and proportions for the cluster are likely to be positive, since the majority of parents are keen for their children to be successful. As in the previous chapter, I have looked at the responses to the individual items within this cluster (see table 7.1). The pattern of responses is similar to 2001. Those to items 6 and 15 were strongly positive, whereas the response to item 12 (about friends views of the importance of doing well in mathematics) was negative. As I explained in the previous chapter, this may be explained by a peer-group tendency to play down the importance of success in mathematics (or other academic subjects). The boys and girls results for the items in this cluster are similar (see appendix 7.3d1). (However, in question 6 there were similar proportions of boys and girls responding positively, but 44% of the boys agreed strongly, compared with 29% of the girls. This resulted in the boys mean for this item being significantly higher than the girls.) Cluster E consists of four questions, concerned with reasons (or motivating factors) for doing well in mathematics Q2 I need to do well in mathematics to please my parent(s) Q7 I need to do well in mathematics to please myself Q10 I need to do well in mathematics to get into the college or university I prefer Q17 I need to do well in mathematics to get the job I want. 1 Cluster EAll 2002Females 2002Males 2002mean1.992.011.93proportion78%77%80%Table 7.3e Again, the cluster results are consistent across the genders (se appendix 7.3). Unlike the 2001 results, there is no statistically significant difference between the boys and the girls results for any of the items (see appendix 7.3e1). When the items in this cluster are ranked in order of agreement there is the same pattern (in both genders) as in 2001. More than 85% of the sample agreed that they needed to do well in mathematics in order to go to college or university (item 10). The next most popular reason was to please themselves (item 7), then to get a job (item 17). Pleasing their parents (item 2) was the least popular reason (although still positive). 7.4 Section 2 For section 2, I will discuss the individual results (see table 7.1 and appendix 7.1), before concentrating upon the clusters. Earlier in this chapter (section 7.1), I noted that there is strong evidence that all but the following four Section 2 questions indicate genuine positive and negative responses. Q26 We start the lesson by carrying on with our work from the previous lesson Q33 We demonstrate our working to the rest of the class (e.g. on the board) Q35 We explain our methods to the rest of the class Q39 In the lesson, the teacher asks the whole class questions about the work we are doing. Of the significant results, the following items attracted the highest proportions of positive responses (as they did in 2001). Q20 The teacher shows us how to do mathematics problems. Q22 We all do the same work in the lesson Q24 We work from worksheets or textbooks on our own Q41 We all work on the same topic As I noted in section 6.5, before the Strategy, lessons where the teacher showed the class what to do, followed up by work for the whole class from textbooks or worksheets were common. Thus, the high agreement rates for these items are unsurprising. The items with lowest proportions of positive responses were: Q21 We have a finishing off activity at the end of the lesson Q30 The teacher sets different work for some students Q38 Our lessons are split into three parts, a beginning, a middle and an end. We have different things to do in each part of the lesson. These item concern discussing what has been learned, differentiation and the three-part lesson. They represent important aspects of the approaches to teaching recommended in the Framework. (In 2001, the items with the lowest proportions of positive responses were 30, 38 (listed above) and 28 As a class, we discuss what we have learned in the lesson). I will compare the 2001 and 2002 responses in the next chapter. Section 2 Clusters Cluster A concerns starters and consists of three questions: Q26 We start the lesson by carrying on with work from the previous lesson Q27 There is a mental mathematics starter for the whole class Q38 Our lessons are split into three parts, a beginning, a middle and an end. We have different things to do in each part of the lesson. As in the last chapter, the coding for item 26 has been reversed for aggregation into the cluster result. Q26Q27Q38Cluster meanMeans2.412.633.302.84Proportions59%35%16%24%Table 7.5a 59% of the responses to question 26 were positive, as was the mean. The item was phrased in such a way that a positive response indicated the absence of starters. As I noted at the beginning of this section, the responses to question 38 were strongly negative. Only 16% of those responding indicated that lessons were in the three-part format (which incorporates a starter); 82% gave negative responses to this item. Question 27 was the only item in this cluster directly addressing starters; it attracted positive responses from 35% of the respondents. Although the strategy had been implemented for this population, fewer than 50% of the population indicated that starters were a common feature of maths lessons. Cluster B (questions 29 and 37) concerns the teacher explaining the objectives of the lesson and consists of two questions: Q29 We know what the teacher wants us to learn about in the lesson Q37 The teacher explains to us what we are going to learn in the lesson. Q29Q37Cluster meanMean1.841.951.90Proportion85%75%77%Table 7.5b The responses to these items are consistent. Over three-quarters of the population indicated that it was common for their mathematics teachers to inform the class of the lesson objectives. Cluster C is the largest cluster of items, as it addresses direct interactive teaching, the principal teaching approach recommended by the Framework. This cluster consists of eighteen items: Q19 At the end of the lesson, the teacher sums up what our class has learned Q20 The teacher shows us how to do mathematics problems Q23 At the end of the lesson we discuss the progress we have made Q24 We work from worksheets or textbooks on our own Q28 As a class, we discuss what we have learned in the lesson Q29 We know what the teacher wants us to learn about in the lesson Q31 The teacher gets the whole class to discuss our work Q32 the teacher links our work up to other topics and other subjects Q33 We demonstrate our working to the rest of the class (e.g. on the board) Q34 We discuss our mistakes with the class Q35 We explain our methods to the rest of the class Q37 The teacher explains to us what we are going to learn in the lesson Q39 In the lesson, the teacher asks the whole class questions about the work we are doing Q40 The teacher discusses common mathematics mistakes with the whole class Q42 We use things from everyday life in solving mathematics problems Q43 The teacher discusses the mathematics we are doing with the whole class Q44 The teacher demonstrates the mathematics we are learning to the whole class Q45 At the end of the lesson, the teacher goes over the mathematics we have learned. The scoring for item 24 was reversed in the aggregation of the cluster result. Q19Q20Q23Q24Q28Q29Q31Q32Q33Q34Mean2.691.642.981.722.921.842.882.922.482.80Proportion37%89%27%89%30%85%31%31%48%40%Q35Q37Q39Q40Q42Q43Q44Q45MeanMean2.461.952.452.242.301.711.712.682.45Proportion55%75%52%67%60%84%84%40%58%Table 7.5c As I noted earlier in this chapter (section 7.1), items 33, 35 and 39 are medial and indicate neither positive nor negative responses. Items 20 and 24 have strongly positive responses (as in 2001); none of the items has a particularly strong negative response. Ignoring items 33, 35 and 39, the items can be split into two groups, positive and negative. The positive items are items 20, 24, 29, 37, 40, 42, 43 and 44. These items concern the teacher making clear what the lesson is about, showing the class what to do and the teacher discussing the work (including errors) and using everyday contexts. Of the negative items (19, 23, 28, 31, 32, 34 and 45), four concern class discussions, the others concern summarising the lesson and making links with other subjects. The response patterns are similar to the previous year. The main differences are: item 42, about using contexts from everyday life, was medial and is now positive, item 43, about the teacher discussing the maths being done, is now positive (instead of negative) and the responses to item 35, about pupils explaining methods to the rest of the class, are now evenly balanced, and no longer negative. Again, the responses to this cluster indicate that the some aspects of direct interactive teaching (especially those concerning the more traditional aspects of the teachers didactic role) were identified by the pupils as being used regularly. However, other aspects of direct interactive teaching (summarising, placing the mathematics in a relevant context and promoting whole-class discussion) were not generally acknowledged as being common, though the pupils recorded their use more frequently in 2002 than in 2001 (as I shall discuss in the next chapter; section 8.6). Cluster D concerns all of the pupils doing the same work. There are two items in this cluster: Q22 We all do the same work in the lesson Q41 We all work on the same topic. These responses may also be considered in relation to the responses to item 30, the teacher sets different work for some students. Q22Q41Cluster meanQ30Means1.391.341.373.40Proportions93%94%94%10%Table 7.5d The pupils responses to questions 22 and 41 are positive and consistent, indicating that in the majority of lessons, all members of the class work on the same topic. The responses to question 30 (which is phrased in such a way as to mean the opposite of the two other cluster items) are strongly negative, and therefore are consistent with the other items in the cluster. (The responses to question 30 also suggest that differentiation through setting different tasks was not a common teaching approach.) The theme underlying Cluster E is group-work. The two items associated with this cluster are phrased oppositely: Q24 We work from worksheets or textbooks on our own Q25 We work together in pairs or small groups. As in the previous chapter, the responses to question 24 have been adjusted in the aggregation of the cluster mean. Q24Q25Cluster meanMean1.722.813.04Proportion89%29%6%Table 7.5e As in 2001, the responses to this cluster indicate that the pupils do not recognise group-work as being a regular feature of lessons. Cluster F concerns the discussion of mistakes and misconceptions and consists of two items: Q34 We discuss our mistakes with the class Q40 The teacher discusses common mathematics mistakes with the whole class. Q34Q40Cluster meanMean2.802.242.52Proportion40%67%36%Table 7.5f The response patterns to this cluster are similar to those in 2001. Although both items refer to discussing mistakes with the class, question 34 refers to the class discussing mistakes, whereas question 40 refers to the teacher discussing mistakes. It appears from the pattern of pupils responses that the teachers discuss errors and misconceptions more often than the pupils. (Again, this is consistent with the analysis of Cluster C, where it was noted that class discussion was not identified as a regular part of classroom practice). As I described in Chapter 6 (section 6.6) on methods, there can be problems arising as a result of working with the proportion of positive cluster means. In my analysis, I have decided to call a cluster mean positive if it is less than 2.5. In a cluster with two items, there may be many cluster means of 2.5, this may produce some unexpected figures. In this cluster, there were 86 such values. Had these been classified as positive, then the positive proportion for the cluster mean would have been 63% instead of 36%. Cluster G concerns feedback, where the teacher reports back to the pupils on their progress and learning in the lesson. This cluster consists of two questions: Q23 At the end of the lesson, the teacher sums up what our class has learned Q28 As a class, we discuss what we have learned in the lesson. Q23Q28Cluster meanMean2.982.922.95Proportion27%30%26%Table 7.5g As in 2001, the pupils responses to these items are consistently negative. This may be taken as an indication that teachers feeding back to the pupils was not a regular feature of lessons. Cluster H concerns the teacher summarising the lesson at the end and consists of two items: Q19 At the end of the lesson, the teacher sums up what our class has learned Q45 At the end of the lesson, the teacher goes over the mathematics we have learned. Q19Q45Cluster meanMean2.692.682.69Proportion37%40%29%Table 7.5h (Note that, for this cluster, there were 68 cluster means of 2.5. As I explained in my analysis of cluster F, this makes the proportion of positive cluster means inconsistent with the proportions for the individual cluster items.) The results for the two items are reasonably consistent and negative. Just over a third of the respondents indicated that it was a common occurrence for the teacher to summarise the lesson (compared with about a quarter the previous year). Cluster I is concerned with the teacher making links and connections with other topics and subjects. It consists of two questions: Q32 The teacher links our work up to other topics and other subjects Q42 We use things from everyday life in solving mathematics problems. Q32Q42Cluster meanMean2.922.302.61Proportion31%60%27%Table 7.5 i As in 2001, the results for the two items are quite different. The results for question 32 are negative, whereas those for question 42 are positive (however, even in this case, it should be noted that 40% of the pupils indicated that the application of mathematics to everyday things was not a regular classroom approach). In the previous chapter (section 6.6), I noted that the wording of the two questions was rather different. As for the 2001 data, it is impossible to determine whether the difference in the responses can be attributed to pupils distinguishing between these two statements. Cluster J is concerned with there being a clearly defined end to the lesson. It consists of five items: Q19 At the end of the lesson, the teacher sums up what our class has learned Q21 We have a finishing off activity at the end of the lesson Q23 At the end of the lesson we discuss the progress we have made Q38 Our lessons are split into three parts, a beginning, a middle and an end. We have different things to do in each part of the lesson Q45 At the end of the lesson, the teacher goes over the mathematics we have learned. Q19Q21Q23Q38Q45MeanMeans2.693.172.983.302.682.97Proportions37%15%27%16%40%20%Table 7.5j These items address different aspects of end of lesson activities. The response patterns for this cluster are broadly similar and negative. In 2001, about a quarter of the pupils in the sample indicated that end of lesson activities were common practice, however in 2002 the positive proportions for the individual items were more variable and varied between 15% and 40%. Cluster K concerns mental and oral work in lessons. It consists of seven items: Q27 There is a mental mathematics starter for the whole class Q31 The teacher gets the whole class to discuss our work Q34 We discuss our mistakes with the class Q35 We explain our methods to the rest of the class Q36 We do mental mathematics during the lesson Q39 In the lesson, the teacher asks the whole class questions about the work we are doing Q40 The teacher discusses common mistakes with the whole class. As I noted earlier (in section 7.1 and in this section when I discussed cluster C), the responses to questions 35 and 39 were not significant by either of the statistical measures and were unable to be classified as either positive or negative. Q27Q31Q34Q35Q36Q39Q40MeanMeans2.632.882.802.462.672.452.242.59Proportions35%31%40%55%37%52%67%40%Table 7.5k With the exception of questions 35, 39 and 40, the responses are negative (of the three exceptions, only item 40 can be considered positive since the others are medial, as noted above). As in 2001 (ignoring the medial items and question 40), approximately a third of the pupils provided positive responses. As I discussed in the previous chapter (section 6.6), the wording of item 40 may explain the apparent discrepancy between the results. Considering the cluster results as a whole, there is some evidence that only about a third of the 2002 sample considered mental and oral mathematics to be a common feature of maths lessons (however, this is an increase on the 2001 figures as I describe in section 8.6 of the next chapter). 7.6 Teachers Results As in the previous chapter, the teachers responses were compared with the class responses (see appendix 7.6a). The data for March 2002 were drawn from eighteen sets of teacher responses. As this is a small sample, it is unsafe to infer too much from it. For each item, the level of agreement between the overall class response and the teachers response is recorded in appendix 7.6b. Table 7.6, on the following page, compares the overall teacher responses to Section 2 with the overall pupil responses. Question192021222324252627Teacher mean2.171.172.501.562.561.942.722.721.72Teacher proportion78%94%39%100%44%83%33%39%78%Pupil mean2.691.643.171.392.981.722.812.412.63Pupil proportion37%89%15%93%27%89%29%59%35%Question282930313233343536Teacher mean2.221.532.502.352.282.332.281.941.78Teacher proportion67%89%44%61%67%61%50%67%83%Pupil mean2.921.843.402.882.922.482.802.462.67Pupil proportion30%85%10%31%31%48%40%55%37%Question373839404142434445Teacher mean1.442.061.561.611.282.241.441.111.94Teacher proportion83%72%78%100%100%61%100%100%89%Pupil mean1.953.302.452.241.342.301.711.712.68Pupil proportion75%16%52%67%94%60%84%84%40%Table 7.6 An inspection of the table reveals that the teacher means were lower than the pupil means, except for three items: Q22 We all do the same work in the lesson Q24 We work from worksheets or textbooks on our own Q26 We start the lesson by carrying on with our work from the previous lesson. The teacher proportions were higher than the pupil proportions (except for items 24 and 26). In other words, the teachers responses were generally more positive than the pupils. As in 2001, items 24 and 26 were exceptions (positive responses to these items were inconsistent with the approaches recommended by the Framework). In the previous chapter (section 6.7), I noted that this pattern of responses may be explained by the teachers emphasising teaching approaches associated with the Strategy. These approaches do not appear to have been so readily identified by the pupils, who lack the teachers awareness of the KS3 Strategy and its recommended teaching approaches. Appendix 7.6b analyses the level of agreement between the teachers responses and the overall pupil responses for each item. The pattern of results is very similar to those in 2001. For 18 out of 27 items, the charge (see section 6.7) of the majority of the teachers responses (i.e. positive or negative) agreed with the charge for their classes. In nine of these items there was a significant level of agreement between the pupils and the teachers responses. These items were: Q20 The teacher shows us how to do mathematics problems Q22 We all do the same work in the lesson Q24 We work from worksheets or textbooks on our own Q29 We know what the teacher wants us to learn about in the lesson Q37 The teacher explains to us what we are going to learn in the lesson Q40 The teacher discusses common mathematics mistakes with the whole class Q41 We all work on the same topic Q43 The teacher discusses the mathematics we are doing with the whole class Q44 The teacher demonstrates the mathematics we are learning to the whole class Of these, all but items 37 and 40 were also identified from the 2001 data. The items for which there was significant agreement in both years were those attracting the highest proportions of positive responses from both pupils and teachers in both years. I described the characteristics of these items in section 6.7 of the last chapter (the teacher telling the class what to do and talking about the mathematics they are learning etc.). Although not significant, for a further nine items, the teachers and pupils responses agreed for the majority of classes. Q21 We have a finishing off activity at the end of the lesson Q23 At the end of the lesson we discuss the progress we have made Q25 We work together in pairs or small groups Q26 We start the lesson by carrying on with our work from the previous lesson Q27 There is a mental mathematics starter for the whole class Q30 The teacher sets different work for some students Q33 We demonstrate our working to the rest of the class (e.g. on the board) Q35 We explain our methods to the rest of the class Q39 In the lesson, the teacher asks the whole class questions about the work we are doing With the exception of question 26, these items are consistent with the teaching approaches recommended by the Framework. Despite the lack of statistical significance for these items, these results may be seen as indicating at least a partial adoption of these approaches across the department. Eight of the items had agreement rates of less than 50%. Q19 At the end of the lesson, the teacher sums up what our class has learned Q28 As a class, we discuss what we have learned in the lesson Q31 The teacher gets the whole class to discuss our work Q32 The teacher links our work up to other topics and other subjects Q36 We do mental mathematics during the lesson Q38 Our lessons are split into three parts, a beginning, a middle and an end. We have different things to do in each part of the lesson Q42 We use things from everyday life in solving mathematics problems Q45 At the end of the lesson, the teacher goes over the mathematics we have learned Of these, question 38 was the only item for which there was a significant level of disagreement between the teachers and the classes responses. This item deals with the three-part lesson, one of the major teaching-approaches recommended within the Strategy. In this case, nearly three-quarters of the teachers indicated that they used this approach often, whereas fewer than a fifth of the pupils identified this as a common approach. Overall, these items refer to aspects of direct interactive teaching (the three-part lesson, mental and oral work and placing the lesson in context). As I noted earlier in this section, these responses indicate that, from the teachers perspective, the three-part lesson structure and class discussion were more common than was indicated by the pupils results. As in 2001, the data from the teachers confirms that a style of teaching in which the teacher tells the pupils what to do and then sets work based on this is common. There is some agreement between teachers and pupils that discussion of work is common. However, as the results illustrate, one must be cautious when drawing inferences from either the pupils or the teachers data. I will compare the teachers results for the two years in the next chapter. 7.7 Summary of the 2002 Data Section 1 Pupils attitudes to mathematics The pupils responses were consistently less positive than those from the English sample in the TIMSS research, I will discuss this more fully in chapter 9 section 9.6, where I evaluate my research. There was no evidence of a difference between boys and girls in their attitudes to mathematics. This is in contrast with the 2001 results, when the boys were more positive than the girls. Using TIMSS measures, the percentage of pupils in the sample expressing a positive attitude to mathematics was 59%, compared with 82% in the TIMSS sample and 56% in the 2001 sample (see section 9.6 for a discussion of the TIMSS measures). There is an indication that the pupils believed their peers to consider success in mathematics to be less important than they did. This may have some influence on their public behaviour in relation to learning mathematics. In the 2001 sample there was an indication that, overall, the boys believed their parents had higher expectations than did the girls. There was no evidence of this in the 2002 sample. Section 2 Mathematics Lessons As in 2001, the responses from both the pupils and the teachers indicate that a classroom approach where the teacher explains and demonstrates the mathematics to be learned, followed by work from textbooks and worksheets was common. The regular use of the three-part structure for lessons was identified by only 16% of the pupils, despite 72% of the teachers claiming to use them regularly. Other teaching approaches recommended by the Framework (such as differentiation and pupil, rather than teacher, discussion of what has been learned) were identified as regular occurrences by the majority of teachers. Although the differences between pupils and teachers responses were not as marked as in the previous year, the pupils responses to the same items were either less positive or negative. There was an indication that the use of starters was still relatively uncommon (identified by fewer than 50% of the sample). About three-quarters of the pupils indicated that their teachers informed them of the objectives for their lessons. Some aspects of direct interactive teaching were identified as being used regularly (especially those aspects that concern the teacher in instruction, explanation and demonstration). However, other aspects of direct interactive teaching (particularly summarising and making contextual links with other subjects and the real world) were not generally acknowledged as being common. The responses suggest that whole class discussion, though more common than in the previous year, was still not common across all of the classes. In the majority of lessons, all of the pupils worked on the same topic. Group work was not a regular feature of lessons. There is an indication that mistakes and misconceptions are discussed, but by the teacher, rather than as a class activity. Feeding back to pupils on their progress was not identified as a regular classroom activity. In only about a third of pupils responses was summarising the lesson at the end identified as a regular activity. There is no firm evidence to suggest that mathematics lessons are regularly contextualised by making links and connections to other topics and subject areas. A minority of the pupils responses indicated that lessons have clearly defined endings. The majority of responses indicated that mental and oral mathematics was not a common feature of maths lessons, although a sizeable minority (approximately one third ) did. This may indicate mixed practice across the year group (although it is worth noting that the proportion of positive responses is higher than in the previous year). The teachers responses were more inclined to be positive than the pupils. The nine items (out of 27) for which there was significant agreement between the teachers and the pupils responses, addressed the same teaching approaches that were described above, in part 1 of this section. There was a significant disagreement for one item. This item (Q38) concerned the use of three-part lessons, which was identified by the teachers as a regular feature of lessons, but not by the pupils. CHAPTER EIGHT COMPARISON OF THE 2001 AND THE 2002 RESEARCH DATA In this chapter, I will compare the data collected in 2001 with those collected in 2002. 8.1 Section 1 Data Pupils 2001 mean2001 proportion2002 mean2002 proportionQ12.3265%2.2768%Q22.3957%2.3361%Q32.4852%2.3859%Q42.5547%2.5646%Q52.3363%2.3065%Q61.7590%1.7292%Q72.1271%1.9579%Q82.6837%2.6042%Q91.8284%1.7688%Q101.7883%1.7090%Q112.7037%2.6839%Q122.7336%2.5848%Q132.3952%2.4052%Q143.0323%2.7931%Q151.8388%1.7692%Q163.2414%3.1812%Q172.0768%1.9972%Q182.1278%2.1180%Table 8.1 Table 8.1 (above) compares the pupils results for 2002 with those for 2001. It shows the mean scores for each item and the percentage of respondents making positive responses for each item. In Appendix 8.1, I have analysed the pupils responses from 2001 and 2002. I have used the same statistical measures as in the previous chapters: means and proportions, which I have called positive in the case of means less than 2.5 and proportions greater than 50%. The means and proportions are compared in four ways: for all students across the two years, for males and females within each year, for females across the years and for males across the years. 8.2 Differences in the Whole Sample Results Between 2001 and 2002. There was a significant difference between the whole sample results for four of the items (see appendix 8.1): Q7 I need to do well in mathematics to please myself Q10 I need to do well in mathematics to get into the college or university I prefer Q12 Most of my friends think it is important to do well in mathematics at school Q14 To do well in mathematics at school you need lots of natural talent. The proportions of positive responses to these items were higher for the 2002 sample than those for the 2001 sample. The responses to items 7 and 10 were positive in the 2001 sample and more so in the 2002 sample. For items 12 and 14, the responses were both negative in 2001 and less so in 2002. It is unwise to infer too much from these results, however they may indicate that the pupils in the second sample attached greater importance to success in mathematics, and were less affected by negative influence from their peers. A positive response to each of the items in Section 1 (except 13 and, to a degree, 16) is consistent with a positive attitude to mathematics. Apart from items 13 and 16, the positive proportions for each item for the 2002 sample were higher than those for the 2001 sample. Although it cannot be stated categorically that the Y 8 pupils attitudes to mathematics were better in 2002 than in 2001, there is certainly clear evidence that, using the TIMSS instruments, they had not deteriorated over this period. 8.3 Differences Between the Genders The most marked differences between the genders in their responses were in 2001 (see appendix 8.1). For ten items there were significant differences in at least one of the two statistical measures, whereas in 2002 this was true for just one item. In 2001, the girls proportions of positive responses were lower than the boys for all but four of the items. In 2002, the girls proportions of positive responses were higher in exactly half of the items, including the same four items from 2001: Q10 I need to do well in mathematics to get into the college or university I prefer Q12 Most of my friends think it is important to do well in mathematics at school Q13 Maths is boring Q15 I think it is important to do well in mathematics at school Of the Section 1 items, only question 13 is phrased in such a way that a negative response is consistent with a positive attitude to learning mathematics. Hence, the responses to this item may also be seen as an indication of the boys more positive attitudes. It is also interesting to note that, from the responses to question 12 in both years, the girls were more inclined to believe that their friends wished to do well in mathematics. This is noteworthy, particularly for the 2001 sample, for which there is an indication that the girls generally had a more negative attitude to mathematics than the boys did. The differences in the male responses across the years were significant for just one item (see appendix 8.1). This was question 7 I need to do well in mathematics to please myself. The differences in the female responses were significant (in at least one of the two statistical measures) for nine items. In six of these, the responses by the girls from the 2002 sample indicated that they had a more positive attitude towards mathematics. These results suggest the possibility that the girls in the 2001 sample were less positive about mathematics than those in the 2002 sample. This could account for some of the differences between the boy and the girls results in 2001. I will discuss this again in section 9.2 of the next chapter 8.4 Section 1 Clusters In appendix 8.4, the data for each of the section 1 clusters are compared in the same way as above. For Cluster A, which gives a broad indication of whether or nor a pupil finds mathematics rewarding, there were no significant differences between the overall sample results. However, there were significant differences between the two sets of girls results and between the boys and girls results in 2001. In each case, the 2001 girls results were less positive. This is consistent with the observation made above about the girls in 2001. Cluster B was used by TIMSS to explore pupils attitude to mathematics. Analysis of the results of this cluster fits the pattern described above. There was no overall difference between the results for the two years, however other results were more positive when compared with the girls results for 2001. In the analysis of the Cluster C results, there were no significant differences between the responses for any of the groups. There is no evidence from the data of any significant change in pupils beliefs about how personal attributes and characteristics relate to success in mathematics. Cluster D concerns parents, friends and respondents views about the importance of doing well in mathematics at school. Again, there were no significant differences between the groups (except in the cluster means for the whole population in 2001 and 2002), however this was not supported by a corresponding difference in proportions of positive responses between these two groups. For Cluster E, there were significant differences (in both measures) between the 2001 and 2002 results for the whole sample and for the girls. This cluster concerns reasons for doing well in mathematics. Q2 I need to do well in mathematics to please my parent(s) Q7 I need to do well in mathematics to please myself Q10 I need to do well in mathematics to get into the college or university I prefer Q17 I need to do well in mathematics to get the job I want. The responses for all four items in this cluster were more positive in 2002 than 2001; the biggest differences being those for question 7. However, when the responses to the individual items within this cluster are considered, it appears that that the significant difference between the measures for 2001 and 2002 is a result of generally increased motivation, as shown across the four items, rather than one specific motivational factor. When the changes in the boys and girls responses to the individual items in this cluster are compared, there is no clear pattern to indicate that this apparent increase in motivational factors is especially true of either girls or boys. 8.5 Section 2 Table 8.5, compares the overall results for the items in Section B for 2001 and 2002 (see appendix 8.5). Question19 +20 +21 -2223 +24 -2526 -27 +2001 mean2.951.792.991.463.231.612.762.133.022001 proportion25%83%25%91%21%86%33%62%21%2002 mean2.691.643.171.392.981.722.812.412.632002 proportion37%89%15%93%27%89%29%59%35%Question28 +29 +303132 +3334 +35 +362001 mean3.212.053.302.953.012.653.012.742.702001 proportion16%66%11%29%23%42%24%35%34%2002 mean2.921.843.402.882.922.482.802.462.672002 proportion30%85%10%31%31%48%35%55%37%Question37 +38 +39 +40 +41 +4243 +44 +45 +2001 mean1.993.462.542.351.332.351.761.742.872001 proportion65%9%41%55%87%54%75%75%28%2002 mean1.953.302.452.241.342.301.711.712.682002 proportion75%16%52%67%94%60%84%84%40%Table 8.5 Where there is a significant difference between at least one of the two measures, it is indicated in the table, next to the question number. If the measure has become more positive between 2001 and 2002, this is indicated by a + sign, if it has become more negative, it is indicated by a - sign. For 17 of the 27 items, the responses in 2002 were more positive, and, for three, more negative. The items where the differences in the measures were greatest were: Q19 At the end of the lesson, the teacher sums up what our class has learned Q21 We have a finishing off activity at the end of the lesson. Q23 At the end of the lesson we discuss the progress we have made Q26 We start the lesson by carrying on with our work from the previous lesson Q27 There is a mental mathematics starter for the whole class Q28 As a class, we discuss what we have learned in the lesson Q29 We know what the teacher wants us to learn about in the lesson Q34 We discuss our mistakes with the class Q35 We explain our methods to the rest of the class Q45 At the end of the lesson, the teacher goes over the mathematics we have learned Of these ten, the results for questions 21 and 26 were more negative, all the others were more positive; however, a negative response to question 26 is consistent with the approaches recommended for the Strategy. These results (except for Q21) indicate the increased adoption of teaching approaches recommended by the Framework: making the objectives for the lesson clear, mental mathematics, discussion of methods and mistakes and summarising the lesson. Question 21 concerns finishing off activities. The pupils responses suggest that this kind of activity has not become more common since the advent of the Strategy. (It is possible that this apparent inconsistency in the results may be explained by finishing off being interpreted as finishing off work already being done.) 8.6 Section 2 Clusters I will now compare the results for the two years with reference to the Section 2 clusters. A table detailing the differences for the clusters is given in appendix 8.6. Cluster A concerns starters and consists of three questions: Q26 We start the lesson by carrying on with work from the previous lesson Q27 There is a mental mathematics starter for the whole class Q38 Our lessons are split into three parts, a beginning, a middle and an end. We have different things to do in each part of the lesson. Note that, the coding for item 26 has been reversed for aggregation into the cluster result. Q26Q27Q38Cluster mean2001 means2.133.023.463.122001 propns62%21%9%10%2002 means2.412.633.302.842002 propns59%35%16%24%Table 8.6a The differences between the cluster means were highly significant in both measures, however, even in 2002, the means are negative. This pattern is matched by the responses to the individual items (since question 26 was phrased in such a way that a positive response indicated the absence of starters, as noted above). These results suggest that the use of starters has increased significantly since the introduction of the Strategy, however it is still not commonplace. For question 27, only a third of the sample recorded this as common practice. Cluster B concerns the teacher explaining the objectives of the lesson and consists of two questions: Q29 We know what the teacher wants us to learn about in the lesson Q37 The teacher explains to us what we are going to learn in the lesson. Q29Q37Cluster mean2001 mean2.051.992.022001 proportion66%65%68%2002 mean1.841.951.902002 proportion85%75%77%Table 8.6b There is a significant difference between the 2001 and 2002 measures for both items in this cluster. In each case, the responses were more positive in 2002. This is mirrored by the results for the cluster means. These results indicate that more pupils identified that it was common for their mathematics teachers to inform the class of the lesson objectives in 2002 than in 2001 (approximately three-quarters as opposed to two-thirds). Cluster C is the largest cluster of items, as it addresses direct interactive teaching, the principal teaching approach recommended by the Framework. This cluster consists of eighteen items: Q19 At the end of the lesson, the teacher sums up what our class has learned Q20 The teacher shows us how to do mathematics problems Q23 At the end of the lesson we discuss the progress we have made Q24 We work from worksheets or textbooks on our own Q28 As a class, we discuss what we have learned in the lesson Q29 We know what the teacher wants us to learn about in the lesson Q31 The teacher gets the whole class to discuss our work Q32 the teacher links our work up to other topics and other subjects Q33 We demonstrate our working to the rest of the class (e.g. on the board) Q34 We discuss our mistakes with the class Q35 We explain our methods to the rest of the class Q37 The teacher explains to us what we are going to learn in the lesson Q39 In the lesson, the teacher asks the whole class questions about the work we are doing Q40 The teacher discusses common mathematics mistakes with the whole class Q42 We use things from everyday life in solving mathematics problems Q43 The teacher discusses the mathematics we are doing with the whole class Q44 The teacher demonstrates the mathematics we are learning to the whole class Q45 At the end of the lesson, the teacher goes over the mathematics we have learned. Note that the coding for item 24 was reversed for aggregation into the cluster result. Q19Q20Q23Q24Q28Q29Q31Q32Q33Q342001 mean2.951.793.231.613.212.052.953.012.653.012001 prop25%83%21%86%16%66%29%23%42%24%2002 mean2.691.642.981.722.921.842.882.922.482.802002 prop37%89%27%89%30%85%31%31%48%40%Q35Q37Q39Q40Q42Q43Q44Q45Mean2001 mean2.741.992.542.352.351.761.742.872.582001 prop35%65%41%55%54%75%75%28%45%2002 mean2.461.952.452.242.301.711.712.682.452002 prop55%75%52%67%60%84%84%40%58%Table 8.6c The marked tendency of the responses to become more positive over the course of the year is illustrated by the change in the cluster means between 2001 and 2002. For every item, the proportion of positive responses increased between 2001 and 2002 (the mean has also become more positive (i.e. lower) for every item other than question 24). For all but two of the items in this cluster (31 and 33), these differences were statistically significant. As I noted above, a negative response to item 24 may be viewed as being consistent with the recommendations of the Strategy. In other words, with the exception of the positive proportions in question 24, the pupils responses indicated that they experienced the teaching approaches recommended within the Framework more often in 2001 than in 2002. However, eight of the items, (19, 23, 28, 31, 32, 33, 34 and 45, concerned with class discussion, making connections with other subjects and summing-up) were negative for both years. Therefore, despite the increase in those responding positively, the activities associated with these items were still not necessarily commonplace in 2002. Items 20, 24, 29, 43 and 44 have the highest positive response rates. This indicates that the majority of pupils view the teacher outlining the objectives of the lesson and showing the pupils what to do as common practices (as was individual work by pupils from textbooks and worksheets). The pupils responses indicate that not all aspects of direct interactive teaching were commonly in place in 2002. Cluster D concerns all of the pupils doing the same work. There are two items in this cluster: Q22 We all do the same work in the lesson Q41 We all work on the same topic. As in the previous chapters, the results for question 30 (the teacher sets different work for some students) are provided for comparison. Q22Q41Cluster meanQ302001 means1.461.331.403.302001 propns91%87%92%11%2002 means1.391.341.373.402002 propns93%94%94%10%Table 8.6d There is no significant difference between the cluster means for 2001 and 2002, however the positive response rates for questions 22 and 41 are very high. Similarly, the responses for question 30 (which has the opposite sense to the two cluster items) are strongly negative. From the pupils responses, it appears that it was common practice in both 2001 and 2002 for all pupils to work on the same topic. The pupils responses to question 30 also offer evidence that differentiation through setting different tasks was not a common feature of the classroom approaches used in either year. The theme underlying Cluster E is group-work. The two items associated with this cluster are phrased oppositely: Q24 We work from worksheets or textbooks on our own Q25 We work together in pairs or small groups. Note that the codings for question 24 have been reversed in the aggregation of the cluster mean. Q24Q25Cluster mean2001 mean1.612.763.072001 propns86%33%9%2002 mean1.722.813.042002 propns89%29%6%Table 8.6e There is no significant difference between the cluster means. For both years, the responses to this cluster indicate that the pupils did not recognise group-work as being a regular feature of lessons. Cluster F concerns the discussion of mistakes and misconceptions and consists of two items: Q34 We discuss our mistakes with the class Q40 The teacher discusses common mathematics mistakes with the whole class. Q34Q40Cluster mean2001 mean3.012.352.682001 propns24%55%27%2002 mean2.802.242.522002 propns40%67%36%Table 8.6f There is a significant difference between the cluster means for 2001 and 2002. The cluster means became more positive in 2002. These patterns are also observable in the responses to the individual items. The difference between the responses to the two items in the cluster may be explained by the difference in the wording. Both items address the discussion of errors, but item 34 refers to pupils discussing errors, whereas item 40 refers to teachers discussing errors. The response patterns may indicate that, when errors are discussed, teachers, rather than pupils more commonly do this. However, this cannot be inferred from the available data. In the previous two chapters (sections 6.6 And 7.5), I discussed the problems and apparent inconsistencies in using the cluster proportions for two-item clusters. Overall, there is evidence from the pupils responses that errors were more commonly discussed in 2002 than in 2001, although the teachers, rather than the pupils, may have been more active in these discussions. Cluster G concerns feedback, where the teacher reports back to the pupils on their progress and learning in the lesson. This cluster consists of two questions: Q23 At the end of the lesson, the teacher sums up what our class has learned Q28 As a class, we discuss what we have learned in the lesson Q23Q28Cluster mean2001 mean3.233.213.222001 propn21%16%9%2002 mean2.982.922.952002 propn27%30%26%Table 8.6g Despite significant changes in the responses to both of the items in this cluster over the year, all of the responses remain negative. Pupils report feeding-back by teachers as being common in less than a third of lessons, although there was an increase in the reports of the use of this approach. Cluster H concerns the teacher summarising the lesson at the end and consists of two items: Q19 At the end of the lesson, the teacher sums up what our class has learned Q45 At the end of the lesson, the teacher goes over the mathematics we have learned Q19Q45Cluster mean2001 means2.952.872.902001 propns25%28%21%2002 means2.692.682.692002 propns37%40%29%Table 8.6h As in the previous cluster, in 2002 significantly more pupils identified summarisation of the learning in lessons as common practice. However, even in 2002, less than half of the pupils recorded this as being common. Cluster I is concerned with the teacher making links and connections with other topics and subjects. It consists of two questions: Q32 The teacher links our work up to other topics and other subjects Q42 We use things from everyday life in solving mathematics problems Q32Q42Cluster mean2001 means3.012.352.682001 propns23%54%28%2002 mean2.922.302.612002 propns31%60%27%Table 8.6i As I commented in the previous chapter, the patterns of responses to the two items constituting this cluster are quite different. The increase in the proportion of pupils responding positively to question 32 is significant, however this is not the case for question 42 (and consequently, the cluster mean). These results suggest that the use of examples from real life is relatively common in mathematics lessons. However, these connections to other disciplines and real-life are not always made explicit by teachers (although the responses suggest that this may be growing more common). Cluster J is concerned with there being a clearly defined end to the lesson. It consists of five items: Q19 At the end of the lesson, the teacher sums up what our class has learned Q21 We have a finishing off activity at the end of the lesson Q23 At the end of the lesson we discuss the progress we have made Q38 Our lessons are split into three parts, a beginning, a middle and an end. We have different things to do in each part of the lesson Q45 At the end of the lesson, the teacher goes over the mathematics we have learned. Q19Q21Q23Q38Q45Mean2001 means2.952.993.233.462.873.102001 propn25%25%21%9%28%15%2002 means2.693.172.983.302.682.972002 propn37%15%27%16%40%20%Table 8.6j With the exception of question 21, the pupils responses indicate a significant increase in the incidence of clear endings to lessons. However, at best (question 45), this is indicated by only 40% of students. Hence there appears to be greater use of this teaching approach, but it is identified as being commonplace only by a minority of the pupils. Cluster K concerns mental and oral work in lessons. It consists of seven items: Q27 There is a mental mathematics starter for the whole class Q31 The teacher gets the whole class to discuss our work Q34 We discuss our mistakes with the class Q35 We explain our methods to the rest of the class Q36 We do mental mathematics during the lesson Q39 In the lesson, the teacher asks the whole class questions about the work we are doing Q40 The teacher discusses common mistakes with the whole class. Q27Q31Q34Q35Q36Q39Q40Mean2001 means3.022.953.012.742.702.542.352.752001 propns21%29%24%35%34%41%55%31%2002 means2.632.882.802.462.672.452.242.592002 propns35%31%40%55%37%52%67%40%Table 8.6k The significant difference in the cluster means suggests that mental and oral work in mathematics was more common in 2002 than in 2001. The responses to the individual cluster items were all more positive in 2002. However, the responses to only three of the seven items were actually positive in 2002 (and then only one of these significantly so), compared with one in 2001. Overall, the responses indicate that mental and oral work was more common in mathematics lessons in 2002, even if it was not common in the majority of lessons. The Pupils Additional Comments At the end of the questionnaire, pupils were given the opportunity to make additional comments. In 2001, 84 of the 380 pupils commented (22%). In 2002, 68 of the 331 pupils commented (21%). The comments made in each of the years were similar. In some classes, more than a third of the pupils commented, whereas in others none commented. Generally, the classes in which most comments were made were those in which the teacher was either very popular or very unpopular. Shes nice, Mr A is scary and shouts too much were typical responses from two of the classes from which there were many comments. Other comments concerned the difficulty and relevance of mathematics, boredom and lack of fun. Pupils in both years complained that there was too much homework and that teachers devoted too much attention to naughty pupils. Some of the pupils took the opportunity to request a change of mathematics set or teacher. The majority of the responses were critical (either of mathematics as a subject, or of mathematics lessons). In both years, a few responses were rude or offensive. Of the 84 comments from April 2001, there were four or fewer comments from seven of the sixteen teaching groups with the remaining groups providing between five and ten comments. Nearly half of the comments expressed a negative attitude to maths (typically maths is boring). Twelve were rude or offensive. However there were some positive comments about teachers (from one class in particular) and about maths in general. Several of the pupils commented that maths should be made more fun, that textbooks were boring and that teachers spent too long attending to naughty children. In the March 2002 survey, there were four or fewer responses from eleven of the seventeen teaching groups, whereas three of the groups had ten or more comments. Of the comments, 68 were critical (five were derogatory) and eight were positive. The comments were evenly distributed between attitudes to mathematics and mathematics teaching. The most common response was I dont like maths. Other repeated responses concerned making maths more fun, moving on too quickly and teachers spending too long on naughty children. In both 2001 and 2002, the sample of pupils providing comments was not random and cannot be treated as being representative of the research populations. As may be expected, those classes whose teachers were either very popular or unpopular produced the highest response rates. When this is considered with the variety of responses and the limited frequencies of even the more common ones, it is inappropriate to make any inferences from these data. However, they provide some interesting insights. The rather negative attitudes to mathematics apparent in these comments are in line with the research findings and may be seen as corroborating the findings concerning pupils attitudes. In the second year, there were a few references from pupils in one class to moving on too quickly. This may be a consequence of the recommendation in the Framework to maintain a brisk pace (DfEE, 2001:29), however this cannot be established reliably from the available data. 8.8 Teachers Results The teachers results for 2001 were compared with those for 2002 Comparison of teachers Section 2 Responses (see appendix 8.8) Question1920212223242526272001 mean2.211.212.791.642.212.002.362.502.432001 proportions 53%82%18%76%47%76%47%41%35%2002 mean2.171.172.501.562.561.942.722.721.722002 proportions78%94%39%100%44%83%33%39%78%Question2829303132333435362001 mean2.071.292.502.142.572.292.572.501.792001 proportions 47%82%41%59%41%59%35%41%65%2002 mean2.221.532.502.352.282.332.281.941.782002 proportions67%89%44%61%67%61%50%67%83%Question3738394041424344452001 mean1.362.361.361.711.432.071.501.502.072001 proportions 76%53%76%76%82%59%76%82%59%2002 mean1.442.061.561.611.282.241.441.111.942002 proportions83%72%78%100%100%61%100%100%89%Table 8.8 Since the sample size is not large in these cases, formal tests for differences in proportions are not appropriate. However, although significance cannot be inferred from these results, they can be used as corroborative evidence to support the results derived from the means. (For this project, the mean for an item may, in some cases, be viewed as the less satisfactory measure, since in the mean the distinction between positive (1 & 2) and negative (3 & 4) responses becomes blurred through aggregation). In the two previous chapters I noted that it was inevitable that the teachers were more likely to identify their use of teaching approaches recommended by the Framework than were the pupils. A quick glance at the table above reveals that the responses to most of the items were positive, the majority of them strongly so. The number of teachers in the sample was small, there were too few data for each question to permit a formal test of proportions. The only statistical test available was a t-test for sample means. Using this technique, there is evidence of a significant difference between the 2001 and 2002 responses for just one item, question 44 (the teacher demonstrates the mathematics we are learning to the whole class). Considering the proportions informally, there is an indication that the teachers responses to the following thirteen items were also more positive in 2002. Q19 At the end of the lesson, the teacher sums up what our class has learned Q21 We have a finishing off activity at the end of the lesson Q22 We all do the same work in the lesson Q27 There is a mental mathematics starter for the whole class Q28 As a class, we discuss what we have learned in the lesson Q32 The teacher links our work up to other topics and other subjects Q35 We explain our methods to the rest of the class Q37 The teacher explains to us what we are going to learn in the lesson Q40 The teacher discusses common mathematics mistakes with the whole class Q41 We all work on the same topic Q43 The teacher discusses the mathematics we are doing with the whole class Q44 The teacher demonstrates the mathematics we are learning to the whole class Q45 At the end of the lesson, the teacher goes over the mathematics we have learned. For question 21, the majority of respondents gave negative responses in both years, however the proportion of positive responses increased substantially. Questions 27 and 32 changed from a minority of positive responses to a majority (this was particularly marked in question 27). These items concern making the objectives of the lesson clear, all of the class working on one topic, mental mathematics, discussion of the mathematics being taught and the errors arising, summarising the learning and having clear endings to lessons. All of these practices are consistent with the Strategy. The teachers responses suggest that, across the department, they are making greater use of these teaching approaches associated with the Strategy. However, despite the claims for their increased use, some of these approaches were still not recorded as being used widely, and in the case of question 21 (to do with finishing off activities), were not even recorded by a majority! Several responses were negative (notably items 21, 27 and 34 in 2001 and 21, 25 and 26 in 2002). Q21 We have a finishing off activity at the end of the lesson Q25 We work together in pairs or small groups Q26 We start the lesson by carrying on with our work from the previous lesson Q27 There is a mental mathematics starter for the whole class Q34 We discuss our mistakes with the class (Note that question 26 was phrased in such a way that a negative response could be treated as being consistent with the approaches recommended by the Framework.) The one item attracting low response rates twice was question 21, concerning finishing off activities. The teachers responses suggest that, since the introduction of the Strategy, the use of starters and the discussion of errors have become more common, but the use of group work has diminished. Clearly identifiable finishing activities have not been widely used. 8.9 Summary Section 1 Pupils attitudes to mathematics The responses from the pupils from the 2002 sample were generally more positive than those from the pupils in the 2001 sample. However, the 2002 results were still consistently less positive than those from the English sample in the TIMSS research. I will discuss the use of the TIMSS research in section 9.6 of the next chapter. The girls responses in 2001 were much less positive than the boys responses from that year and the girls responses from 2002. In 2002 there was no evidence of any major differences between the boys and the girls responses. Between 2001 and 2002 there was a slight (but not statistically significant) increase in the proportion of pupils expressing a positive attitude to mathematics (as defined by the TIMSS measures): from 56% in 2001 to 59% in 2002 compared with 82% for the TIMSS English sample). Pupils beliefs about how personal attributes and characteristics relate to success in mathematics appear to be stable over the period of the introduction of the KS3 Strategy. Pupils views (and their perceptions of friends views) about the importance of doing well in mathematics at school are stable over this period. There is an indication that the pupils believed their peers to consider success in mathematics to be less important than they did. This may have some influence on their public behaviour in relation to learning mathematics. In the 2001 sample there was an indication that, overall, the boys believed their parents had higher expectations than did the girls. There was no evidence of this in the 2002 sample. The 2002 pupils responses indicate a higher degree of motivation. It is impossible to associate this with any particular motivational factor on the evidence of the data. However, the negative responses of the girls in the 2001 sample are very likely to have contributed to the relative lack of motivation inferred from the 2001 responses. Section 2 Mathematics Lessons. For two-thirds of the Section 2 items, the pupils responses indicated that the teaching approaches recommended in the Framework were used more often in 2001 than in 2002. This was confirmed by the teachers responses. In particular, the pupils responses provided evidence that: making the objectives for the lesson clear mental mathematics discussion of methods and mistakes and summarising the lesson were all much more common in 2002 than 2001. However, even in 2002, these teaching approaches were identified as common only by a minority of students. The response patterns to the only item directly concerned with the three-part lesson, question 38 (Our lessons are split into three parts, a beginning, a middle and an end. We have different things to do in each part of the lesson), illustrate a major difference between the pupils and the teachers responses. The responses from the two populations indicate the increased use of this lesson structure. However, the percentage of pupils identifying this structure increased from 9% to a 16%, whereas the corresponding percentages for the teachers were 53% and 72%. The majority of the pupils in both samples indicated that it was common to start lessons by continuing with work from the previous lesson, although this was less widely reported in 2002 than in 2001. Although there was an increase in the number of pupils identifying the use of starters as common practice, it was still relatively uncommon (mental mathematics starters were identified by around 35% of the sample). Between 2001 and 2002, an increased majority of pupils reported that it was common for their mathematics teachers to inform them of the learning objectives for the lesson. The proportion of students responding positively rose from around two-thirds in 2001 to over three-quarters in 2002. All of the teaching approaches associated with direct interactive teaching were identified as being used more often. Some of these approaches were used regularly (especially those aspects that concern the teacher in instruction, explanation and demonstration). Others, particularly summarising and making contextual links with other subjects and the real world, were used in only a minority of lessons. Whole class discussion, although recorded as more common than in the previous year, was still not regarded as being common by the majority of the 2002 respondents. In most lessons in both years, all of the pupils worked on the same topic. There was no significant difference between the results for the two years for this item. Group work was not a regular feature of lessons. There was no evidence of a change in the frequency of the use of this approach over the year. There is evidence that mistakes and misconceptions were more widely discussed in 2002 than 2001. The responses to the two cluster items were different. There is evidence to suggest that pupils discuss mistakes and misconceptions in a minority of lessons, whereas teachers discuss mistakes and misconceptions in a majority of lessons. Feeding back to pupils on their progress was identified by a higher proportion of the sample in 2002, however, this group comprised less than a third of the population. Fewer than half of the 2002 sample identified summarising as a common teaching approach; nevertheless, this was a significant increase on the 2001 proportion. There was no evidence of an increase in the frequency of contextualisation through making links and connections to other topics and subject areas. The results suggest the possibility that using examples from real life may not be uncommon in mathematics lessons, however teachers may not always make these connections explicit. The responses indicated that finishing off activities at the ends of lessons remained uncommon in both years; this was confirmed by the teachers results. There is evidence, however, that more lessons had clearly defined endings in 2002 than in 2001. Between 2001 and 2002 there was an increase in the proportion of pupils identifying mental and oral mathematics as a common feature of maths lessons. The pupils responses, however, indicate that this approach to teaching was only evident in a minority of lessons. The possibility that the teachers responses were more likely to reflect the teaching approaches outlined for the Strategy has already been addressed in previous chapters. The teachers responses, as expected, indicated a more comprehensive adoption of the teaching approaches recommended for the Strategy than did those of the pupils. However, the pupils and teachers responses concur in identifying the main features of the approaches to teaching identified in the points above. CHAPTER NINE CONCLUSIONS AND EVALUATION In this chapter, I will review the results arising from the responses to the questionnaires discuss these results in the context of the sample school discuss the wider significance of these results identify areas for further research identify the consequences for the school of the results of this project evaluate my research project and discuss ways in which the project could be improved 9.1 The Results of the Project In the three previous chapters I have given detailed accounts of the results from both years of the project and compared these results. I will give a brief, general overview of all of the results in this section. The pupils in this school gave consistently less positive responses to TIMSS items than those in the TIMSS English sample. (I will discuss the reasonableness of comparing my results with TIMMS national results later in this chapter, in sections 9.2 and 9.6.) In particular, the evidence from the responses to the TIMSS attitudes cluster suggests that the proportions of pupils with positive attitudes to mathematics were relatively low (56% in 2001 and 59% in 2002, compared with 82% in the TIMSS English sample). In 2001, the proportion of girls whose responses indicated a positive attitude was significantly smaller than the corresponding proportion of boys. (This was not the case in 2002.) In the 2001 sample, the proportion of girls motivated to do well in mathematics to please their parents was smaller than the corresponding proportion of boys. This was not the case in 2002. A striking discrepancy between the results to questions 12 and 15 (in both years) indicates that pupils were more likely to believe that they personally attached more importance to success in mathematics than did their friends. Some general patterns emerged about the pupils perceptions of the teaching approaches they experienced. Over the year, there is evidence from the pupils responses that the teaching approaches recommended by the Framework were being used more often. However, several of these approaches were reported in only a minority of responses. In particular, it appears that a few aspects of the recommended approaches to teaching were already well established before the introduction of the Strategy. These consisted mainly of approaches such as making the lesson objectives clear, explaining and demonstrating the mathematics to be learned, working on the same topic and the teacher discussing errors and misconceptions with the class. Other approaches (such as, mental and oral mathematics, class discussion of errors and misconceptions, summarising the lesson and feeding back to pupils) became more common over the year, but were still not common practices. In both years, the majority of responses indicated that it was common to start lessons by carrying on with work from the previous lesson. (This is contrary to the recommendations in the Framework for a beginning, a middle and an end (DfEE, 2001, 28). Although the Framework advocates progression between lessons, each lesson will be a discrete part of a whole programme of study with its own objective or objectives.) The use of three-part lessons was rarely identified by the pupils (by 9% in 2001 and 16% in 2002). There was little evidence of the use of group work or of contextual links being made between the mathematics being taught and other subjects and the real world. Overall, there was not a great deal of agreement between the teachers responses to the Section 2 items and those of their pupils. The teachers responses (particularly those from 2002) indicated that most of the teaching approaches recommended for the strategy were used regularly. This was not supported by the pupils results. In 2001, there was a significant level of agreement between the teachers and the pupils on only seven of the twenty-seven items in section two of the questionnaire and nine in 2002. These items mainly addressed approaches to teaching that were already in place before the advent of the Strategy (explaining and demonstrating, working on the same topic and making the objectives of the lesson clear). In 2002, there was a significant level of disagreement between the teachers and pupils responses for one item, question 38 (concerned with the three-part lesson). For this item, 16 of the 18 class-teachers responded that the three-part lesson format was commonly used, however in only three cases was this endorsed by a majority of members of the respective classes. However, the teachers and the pupils responses did concur in indicating that, across all of the items, there was an increased use of the recommended teaching approaches over the year (this is indicated both by the mean scores for the items and the percentages responding positively). This effect was more pronounced in the pupils results. Comparing the pupils responses to the two surveys, there is significant evidence of the increased use of teaching approaches recommended for the Strategy in seventeen of the twenty-seven items, whereas for the teachers this was true for just one item (however the teachers sample was small). 9.2 The School Context There is a widely-held view amongst the staff of the school that, in recent years, Year 8 has been the most difficult year group to engage, although the evidence for this is largely anecdotal. Unfortunately, no other data concerning pupils attitudes, comparable to those arising from this project, are available for other year groups or relating to other subjects within this school. Therefore it is impossible, within the scope of this project, to determine whether the results concerning the pupils attitudes to mathematics are illustrative of the school as a whole or whether they apply just to mathematics. What is striking is that, in both years, the proportions of pupils with positive scores in the attitudes cluster were consistently much lower than those obtained from the TIMSS research. This may not be as significant as it appears: there is no statistical justification for drawing inferences based on this comparison since the population in this survey is not a random sample of English Y8 pupils. In its analysis, the DfES compares schools with others from a group sharing similar characteristics. Later in this chapter, in section 9.6, I will discuss the relevance of TIMSS results to this project. The proportion of pupils with positive attitude scores increased by (a statistically insignificant) 3% over the year. However, it is unsafe to ascribe this small increase to the implementation of the Strategy. As I noted earlier, the 2001 girls results for this cluster were more negative than the boys. This may indicate a group of relatively disaffected girls in the 2001 sample, which in turn may have depressed the 2001 results. There is no evidence however, to suggest that the implementation of the Strategy has resulted in increased alienation from mathematics over the course of the year. It is worth noting that in September 2001, seven months before the first set of data was collected, the mathematics department was moved from well-appointed accommodation on one school site to very run-down accommodation on a more crowded site. The morale of the mathematics department suffered as a consequence and, coupled with the poor physical learning environment, may have had some bearing on the pupils attitudes as well. There is concern within the school of an anti boffin (a term used by the pupils) culture, in which there is peer pressure not to be seen as studious. This is indicated by the pattern of responses to two items in Section 1. Question 15 (I think it is important to do well in mathematics at school) elicited reasonably high levels of agreement (88% and 92%, compared with TIMSS results of 98%), with no significant difference between the boys and the girls results. Question 12 (Most of my friends think it is important to do well in mathematics at school) had much lower levels of agreement (36% and 48%, compared with TIMSS results of 85%). The school is the only secondary school in the town and most of the local children attend the school. It follows that a high proportion of the friends of the pupils in the sample were other pupils in the sample. One would have expected the agreement rates for the two items to be consistent. The inconsistency of the results may well reflect a desire on the pupils part not to appear to their friends as boffins. Although there is some evidence that the girls in the 2001 sample had generally more negative attitudes to mathematics than the boys (see section 8.3), it is interesting to note that, in each year, a higher percentage of the girls acknowledged the importance of mathematics to their friends. (Nevertheless, the differences between 37% and 35% in 2001 and 51% and 45% in 2002 were not significant.) If an anti-boffin culture does exist within the school, it may be more pronounced among the boys than among the girls. From September 2000, teachers at the school were expected to teach Year 7 from the Framework for the Strategy, using direct interactive teaching approaches within a three-part lesson, for most lessons. The following year this was expected for both Years 7 and 8. The teachers at the school had been involved in training for the implementation of the Strategy since the summer of 2000, in some cases before that. All but four of the Year 8 teachers in 2001 and all of them in 2002 were already teaching classes according to the principles of the Framework. Clearly, the majority of the Y8 teachers in both 2001 and 2002 were aware of the recommended teaching approaches of the Strategy. Thus, it is not surprising that the teachers responses to Section 2 indicate a greater use of the teaching approaches recommended for the Strategy than do the pupils. Inevitably, the teachers would have been more attuned to the use of these approaches in their teaching than their pupils, and therefore more able to identify them, whereas their pupils may not have been explicitly aware of the existence of these approaches. Secondly, these approaches may well have been part of the teachers planned curriculum and therefore acknowledged by the teachers but may not have been part of the pupils experienced curriculum. A third alternative is that the teachers, conscious of the professional demands placed on them by the implementation of the Strategy, may have tended to describe their teaching approaches in the most favourable light. (Since I am the head of department at the sample school, this tendency may be more pronounced. I will discuss this further in the postscript to this account, in section 10.1.) A fourth possibility exists that a few of the Y8 pupils may have used the questionnaires as a means of criticising their teachers (many of the voluntary comments offered by the pupils were overtly critical of their teachers). It is impossible to tell which, if any, of these possibilities explains the discrepancy in the results; aspects of all four may be relevant. However as I have described in Chapter 5 (section 5.13), the teachers results were collected as a triangulation exercise to validate the pupils responses and do not form a substantive part of the research. Despite the discrepancies between the teachers and the pupils results, there is evidence from this project of the increased use of the teaching approaches recommended for the Strategy, although the pupils results indicate that these approaches were not used as regularly as the school might have expected. 9.3 The Wider Significance of the Results I have already discussed the problems of making inferences from this project. The sample was an opportunity sample (admittedly consisting of almost the whole population) of Year 8 pupils from one school. As such, it cannot be treated as a random sample of English Year 8 pupils (although the research sample can be expected to be reasonably representative of this particular population). It certainly cannot be treated as a random sample of all Key Stage 3 pupils, at whom the Strategy is targeted. However, the results suggest a number of possibilities. As I noted in section 3.5, Costello (2000) was concerned that some of the teaching approaches recommended for the Strategy might single pupils out and cause anxiety and embarrassment. There is no direct evidence from this project that this is the case. In fact, in 2002, a higher proportion of the responses indicated a positive attitude to mathematics, contrary to Costellos assertions. However, because of the nature of the research sample, it is impossible to dismiss Costellos claims for pupils nationally. It may also be the case that Costellos concerns are justified for a small number of pupils and therefore should not be dismissed out of hand Concerns about a slump in progress and motivation during Key Stage 3 have been reported (DfEE, 2000a and TES, 2001a: 17). The results from this project indicate that, in recent years in this particular school, Year 8 pupils have demonstrated a pronounced tendency to have more negative attitudes to mathematics than was indicated by the national TIMSS results (Keys et al, 1997). (As I noted earlier, in section 9.2, it should be borne in mind that the research sample was not designed to be representative of Year 8 nationally, it is therefore incorrect to infer that these attitudes are in fact more negative.) Whether the reported KS3 slump can be attributed to problems with the curriculum, or whether there are other social factors involved is impossible to say. On the evidence of this research, there is no indication that the advent of the first year of the Strategy had caused a significant change in these pupils attitudes. This may indicate that, in its first year in this school, the Strategy was not as effective in motivating pupils as had been hoped. Alternatively, this may be a consequence of the way in which the Strategy was introduced in this particular school. (If so, my leadership of the department may have been an important factor in this. I will discuss this in section 10.1 of the postscript). Another alternative is that there were other, social and cultural factors affecting Year 8. The reported problems in the early stages of Key Stage 3 may have been part of broader social phenomena and not the direct consequences of specific curricular provision. I commented in section 9.1 on the discrepancy between the results for questions 12 and 15, suggesting that, amongst their peers, pupils may be inclined to understate the importance they attach to success in mathematics (this may also be more pronounced for boys). As I noted in the previous paragraph, when discussing the slump in performance in KS3, this also may be the result of a more widespread social phenomenon. The TIMSS results themselves exhibit this same characteristic, though in a much less marked manner. Reviews of the Key Stage 3 Strategy (Ofsted: 2002) have highlighted weaknesses in the ends of lessons, in particular plenaries. The responses to questions from Cluster J (concerning the ends of lessons) provide data to support this general observation. There were a number of elements of the teaching approaches recommended for the Strategy that were already in common use in the sample school. As I have noted throughout this account, these were generally consistent with a transmission approach to teaching, based on the teacher telling the class what to do. Less didactic approaches, for example group work and student-centred learning (see Appendix 8.5, questions 25 and 30) were much less frequently recorded. The results from this project indicate the possibility that the implementation of the Strategy may lead to an increased use of transmission (see section 3.5) and didactic teaching approaches. I have discussed the disparities between the teachers and the pupils responses to the questionnaire. One of the explanations for this is that the pupils were unused to considering the teaching approaches they experience and may not recognise them so readily. This is likely to be the case nationally. In much the same way that the Framework recommends that teachers make their pupils aware of the mathematics they are to learn, it may be useful for teachers to make their teaching approaches clear to their pupils. This will be particularly beneficial when teachers are preparing for inspection or review by an outside agency. 9.4 Areas for Further Research As I noted in Chapter 2, the Strategy was developed to raise standards in mathematics. When the Strategy was launched, targets were set for 2004 (DfEE, 2001: 2), when the first national cohort of pupils to be affected by the implementation of the Strategy throughout Key Stage 3 will reach the end of Year 9. Ultimately the official success of the first three years of the Strategy will be measured by the DfES in terms of levels of attainment in National Curriculum tests. This particular project has not focused on attainment, although I will discuss this in section 10.4 of the postscript to this report. However, there are a number of aspects relating to attainment that could be addressed profitably by further research. Has the implementation of the Strategy coincided with an increased tendency to teach to the test in order to meet assessment targets? It would be informative to research the relationship between the development of competence in the performance outcomes specified by the Framework and more general mathematical aptitudes such as problem-solving and mathematical modelling. The Strategy was introduced in a climate in which perceived shortcomings in numeracy were viewed as being detrimental to the UKs economic well being (see Chapter 1, section 1.2). An investigation into how the curricular structures and teaching approaches recommended by the Strategy can support the broader social and economic needs of the nation would be timely. An investigation into how the implementation of the Strategy might enable more students to study mathematics at a higher level. This research project highlights particular areas for further research. Does the reported slump in performance early in Key Stage 3 exist? If so, is it a consequence of the curriculum or developmental factors (physical, emotional and intellectual), or does it have a broader social base (in school organisation, or in youth culture for instance?). Is the disparity between the national TIMSS attitudes results and those for the sample just a characteristic of this school, or is it more widespread? How do pupils responses to these items compare with those from pupils from similar schools? How do attitudes to mathematics compare with attitudes to other subjects? How prevalent is the tendency for peers to understate or deny their interest in studying mathematics (or any other subject)? Do the direct teaching approaches recommended for the Strategy result in individual cases of increased anxiety? To what extent have the recommended teaching approaches been adopted nationally? Which approaches are most commonly used and which are least commonly used and why? (I have addressed this issue for the sample school in section 8.9 of the previous chapter and will address it again in the postscript, section 10.5.) Has the adoption of the recommended teaching approaches resulted in a tendency to more didactic teaching? How do teachers and pupils perceptions of the same teaching and learning experiences compare? 9.5 Consequences of the Project As a result of this project, the mathematics department at the school is considering several initiatives. Fostering positive attitudes to mathematics. This may be addressed through a variety of strategies such as: creative lesson-planning, appropriate pace of lessons, more stimulating classroom activities, reviving the lunch-time maths club, improving ICT access, exploiting opportunities to present mathematics in a positive light, making mathematics accessible and relevant to all pupils, improving the physical environment etc. There is evidence that the teaching approaches recommended for the Strategy have been adopted partially, with an emphasis on the more didactic aspects of the Strategy. The department will review its teaching practice in an attempt to promote greater involvement and engagement of pupils through more discussion and differentiated interactive classroom activities. Greater efforts will be made to present mathematical ideas in context, relating them to other subjects and real-life circumstances. The responses from the pupils indicate that the three-part lesson format is not as widely used as was intended. The department will review its use of the three-part lesson as the main teaching format and, in particular, has arranged to devote some INSET time to starters and plenary sessions. Teachers will be encouraged to make pupils aware of what they intend them to learn and also the methods that they intend to use. This should help pupils to become more aware of how they are taught and how best they learn. In taking these initiatives, it worth noting that the adoption of a portmanteau of particular teaching approaches is not a sufficient and probably not a necessary condition for effective teaching (to paraphrase a comment by Professor David Burghes). A mechanistic adherence to a checklist approach can lead to uninspired, boring teaching. In addition to the teaching approaches recommended for the Strategy, the department will continue to attend to other important issues such as aesthetic values, feelings, inspiration, creativity, collaboration and commitment. 9.6 Evaluation This was a small-scale project using a sample size of less than a thousand pupils from one school. There are problems in drawing inferences from such a sample, so the main benefit of using a quantitative approach (i.e. being able to infer) could not be exploited in this project. Clearly, the ability to generalise from the results would have been enhanced by using a much larger random sample across English schools. This was beyond the scope of this project. Not only was it inappropriate to use this sample to draw statistical inferences about English schools generally, it was also inappropriate to make direct comparisons between the results of TIMSS items from the sample population and TIMSS national results. However, the sample was sufficiently large for inferences to be drawn about the particular school (which is itself representative of many English schools). As I outlined in the previous section, the mathematics department in the sample school is reviewing and adjusting its practice in the light of the insights provided by this research project. In developing the questionnaire for this project, I used 22 TIMSS items (out of 45 questions). All 18 items from Section A (concerning attitudes) were taken from TIMSS. As I described in chapter 5 (section5.6), I chose to use TIMSS items because: the timing of the TIMSS research coincided with the development of the National Numeracy Project and the first stages of development of the Strategy issues of validity and reliability would have been addressed in the development of the TIMSS items and results are available from the TIMSS research, against which the results of this project could be compared. When the results for the TIMSS attitude cluster for the two populations involved in this project are compared with those for the TIMSS English sample, there are major inconsistencies (see sections 6.4 and 7.3). Whereas the TIMSS results indicated that 82% of Year 8 English pupils had a positive attitude to mathematics, using the same measures, the results for this sample were 56% in 2001 and 59%. I have noted that the sample used in this project was not representative of the country as a whole, so the project results and the TIMSS results are not directly comparable. However, the difference between the results is striking. One may be tempted to assume that the samples of pupils in this project had a much higher proportions of pupils with negative attitudes to mathematics. This may be reflected in the percentages of pupils responding that they liked mathematics (79% for TIMSS and 65% in the 2001 sample and 68% in 2002: see appendices 6.3 and 7.2 ). Notwithstanding, it cannot be assumed automatically that the TIMSS results can be related directly to this project, not least, they were several years old at the beginning of the project. One should take account of the possibility that the TIMSS English results do not reflect contemporary English pupils attitudes to mathematics as thoroughly as I had initially assumed. This area may be suitable for further investigation. Regardless of this possible problem with the TIMSS results, the Section A items did provide a useful mechanism for comparing attitudes between the two populations under investigation in this project, as was intended. The first section of the questionnaire dealt with pupils attitudes and beliefs about mathematics. These were TIMSS items, for which national and international data were available. This was useful as a comparative instrument and enabled the responses to the individual items and the attitudes cluster from the school to be contrasted with the national results from 1996. (However, as I have noted above, caution must be exercised in doing this because of the sample construction). Aside from the attitudes cluster, the other TIMSS clusters were used as loose groupings of questions rather than as constructs in their own right. The second section consisted largely of items specially devised for this project and therefore did not benefit from TIMSS careful development and extensive trialling of its own items. These items were rephrased several times to promote clarity of meaning, however the analysis of the results indicates that several items could be improved further. In particular, the items concerning discussion of errors could have been more explicit about exactly who does the discussing. Similarly, more items addressing the three-part lesson would have been helpful. The statistical value of cluster measures was very limited (except when comparing two identical measures for 2001 and 2002), however as with the Section 1 clusters, they were useful groupings of associated items. Teachers responses were collected to enable triangulation with the pupils and were intended to give some indication of the reliability of the pupils responses. Inevitably, because of teachers natural concerns to present their classroom practices in the best light, there is a possibility that some of their results may tend to be representative of ideals, rather than practice. (I will give a personal view of this issue in section 10.1 of the postscript.) Despite concerns about the reliability of the teachers results, where they were consistent with the pupils responses there was strong corroborative evidence supporting the results of the pupils survey. The time-scale of the project also presented problems. The project was first proposed late in 2000. The project had to be developed very quickly in order to collect the first set of data from the comparison group, so that the pupils were as unaffected as possible by the implementation of the Strategy in Year 7. It was necessary to devise the questions to be ready for the pilot early in 2001, the results of which were analysed and reported at a research conference in February. In the light of the pilot, the questionnaire was revised and some items rewritten. The first full data collection was at the end of that spring term. Towards the end of a term, pupils (and teachers) are often tired. This may have had some influence on the responses, especially the affective ones. Nonetheless, it was important to collect the data as soon as possible. Since comparisons were to be made between the comparison group and the following Year 8 cohort, it was no longer possible to change any of the existing items. The final, revised, version of the Framework became available shortly after the first data were collected, so Section 2 of the questionnaire was based on the draft Framework. Consequently, there were no items specifically addressing one particular aspect of direct interactive teaching (exploring and investigating, as I explained in Chapter 6). The data from the 2001 sample were processed during the autumn. This meant that it was too late to take-up any of the respondents offers to discuss their responses. However, no major issues requiring this kind of follow-up arose from processing the data. The second set of data was collected in March 2002 at the end of the next spring term. These data were processed quickly and were analysed beside the 2001 data. This process took until the end of the summer term, yet again there was little opportunity to interview pupils about their responses in the same academic year. It would have benefited the project to include some interviews with pupils, as was the original intention, but time constraints made this impossible. It would have been wrong to interview the pupils too long after Year 8. When the project is reviewed overall, it is unfortunate that there was not more time to develop a more polished set of instruments. However, had the data been collected later, the (rather limited) statistical control provided by the comparison group would have been diminished. Worse still, no comparison group would have been available at all had the project been delayed by more than three months. The greatest strength of this research project is that it enables pupils attitudes and beliefs about mathematics and the teaching they experience to be compared with those before the implementation of the Strategy. This is an opportunity that is no longer available since the full implementation of the Strategy. CHAPTER TEN POSTSCRIPT AN INSIDERS VIEW Throughout this research project I have striven to be as objective as possible. Similarly, in writing my account of the project and its outcomes, the need for objectivity has been a priority. However, the researchers role always has some bearing on the outcomes of the research. In this final section of my account, I will review my results in the light of my understandings as the head of mathematics at the sample school. In this postscript I will: discuss how my dual roles as head of department and researcher have affected the results draw upon my observations of colleagues teaching to illuminate the pupils and teachers responses to Section 2 of the questionnaire draw upon evidence from the numeracy consultant (who has worked with the department from September 2001) to help interpret the research outcomes discuss the progress of the pupils in the sample as measured by standard tests of attainment discuss the general progress of the Key Stage 3 Strategy in the school In writing this chapter, I risk offering a singular and subjective account. As a safeguard against this, I have tried to ensure that this chapter reflects my colleagues opinions as well as my own. To achieve this, I asked departmental colleagues to read the first draft of this chapter and offer their views on its accuracy. I have incorporated these views into the final draft. 10.1 My Role as Head of Department and Researcher In Chapter 4, I described the methodology underlying this project. I emphasised my close involvement in mathematics teaching at the sample school, and described my methodology as ethnographic (where the researcher is not independent of the population under investigation). As a researcher I have tried to be as objective as possible throughout the project, however, it is inevitable that, as the head of the mathematics department at the sample school, I have had a major influence in the operation of the department. As I noted earlier (section 5.3), the mathematics department chose to introduce the Strategy a year early. Several factors combined to influence this decision. One of these was the decision to re-write the Key Stage 3 programme of study for the department, since there was a growing sense of dissatisfaction with it. This was compounded by some parental concerns about a lack of challenge and progress in our Y7 classes (reflecting similar concerns being expressed nationally at the time). In addition, on our visits to Year 6 mathematics classes in our feeder primary schools, we were impressed by the level of pupil involvement and by the pupils improved computational skills under the Strategy. In the summer term of 2000 we decided to adopt the Strategy for Y7 the following September, since we felt that these pupils would benefit from the continuation of the Strategy. The local advisory service provided support to the department to prepare for the formal launch of the Strategy; however, significant support and INSET were not readily available until the formal implementation of the Strategy the following year. Nevertheless, for the first year of the departmental implementation of the Strategy in Year 7, we decided to adopt the three-part lesson format as the recommended lesson structure and a strong emphasis was placed on mental and oral work in lessons. However, we were aware that some members of the department were using other lesson structures very successfully: we did not wish to jeopardise this by forcing them to abandon successful approaches. We adopted the policy that lessons should generally have a three-part structure; if other approaches were used, they had to compare favourably with the approaches recommended by the Strategy. This policy continued to apply throughout the period of the research project. In collecting the data for this research project, I assured members of department and pupils that I would not use any of the responses to the questionnaire in any way that would affect them personally. The pupils questionnaires were anonymous and the teachers were not identified explicitly on their questionnaires, however they were associated with their teaching groups and therefore possible to identify. Colleagues appeared comfortable and uninhibited with this exercise. Nevertheless, I recognise that there is a strong possibility that colleagues may have been careful to present their practice in the best possible light to their head of department. As a safeguard against this, other sources may be used to validate the teachers responses: in particular my classroom observations and those of the LEA numeracy consultant. I will discuss these in the two following sections. 10.2 Classroom Observations Departmental colleagues generally welcomed the opportunity to reflect on teaching mathematics, rather than school management (as had been the perceived nature of previous initiatives), so the introduction of the Strategy was treated with enthusiasm, coupled with caution. Throughout this research project, I made regular visits to colleagues classrooms, both informally and for formal observations. On the basis of these visits, I surmise that, with some exceptions, a majority of members of department had adopted the three-part lesson structure (with a focus on mental and oral work) for their classes in Year 7 (and subsequently Year 8), in line with departmental policy. This observation is supported by a corresponding increase in the level of collaboration between departmental members over this period, who developed both formal and informal networks for sharing practice and resources associated with these teaching approaches. In fact, colleagues have been keen to share ideas, especially for starters. During the last two years, two members of department have been leading mathematics teachers (appointed by the LEA to offer other teachers the opportunity to see successful teaching based on the Framework for teaching (DfEE, 1998b: 26)). As far as I could tell as head of department, colleagues adopted the approaches recommended for the Strategy with commitment and enthusiasm (and rather more readily than I had anticipated). In formal observations, observers are presented with what their colleagues want them to see, however in regular unannounced visits to classrooms, I regularly observed practice that was consistent with the Strategy. I believe that, on the whole, departmental colleagues had adopted the main tenets of the teaching approaches recommended by the Framework. That is not to say that all colleagues lessons were slick performances (like those on the training videos). However, in my judgement, there has been a change in teaching styles across the department to accommodate the approaches recommended for the Strategy, not just in Key Stage 3, but across the full age-range. In the following section I will refer to observations from the LEA numeracy consultant (who has worked with the department since September 2001), concerning the departments adoption of the teaching approaches associated with the Strategy. 10.3 The Numeracy Consultants View Sue Madgwick, an LEA numeracy consultant, has worked with the department at the sample school since September 2001. She has worked with the whole department at various times and was the main speaker at a whole-staff INSET session on numeracy in February 2002. Although she is familiar with the whole department and its operation, she has worked most closely with four members of department, who were either new to teaching or unfamiliar with the Strategy. In the autumn of 2002, and in the light of the results of this research project, I asked her for her observations on the departments use of particular teaching approaches. (The questions and her replies can be found in Appendix 10.3). Her observations cannot be treated as comprehensive, since she has worked closely with only a small subgroup of the department. However, her observations about teaching approaches used in the department are useful, in that they are independent and broadly in line with my own observations, discussed in the previous section. My questions to her fell into six categories. The three-part format for lessons. In her view, pupils were used to this format, in particular the use of starters. Starters and plenaries INSET. She planned INSET in these two areas because they had been highlighted in the departmental Key Stage 3 Strategy action plan and because there was a Strategy push to develop the use of plenaries as a result of evaluations of the implementation of the Strategy. Mental and oral mathematics. She noted that the amount of mental and oral work in lessons was affected by the teachers relationships with their classes. The classroom atmosphere was not always appropriate for working this way. Some teachers used mental work in the starter, others used it throughout the lesson. Direct, interactive teaching. She observed that some teachers used whiteboards successfully to promote interaction, although this could lead to a loss of pace in the lesson and a lack of opportunities for consolidation. Other staff used questions well throughout the lesson to maintain involvement and engagement. Pupil engagement and participation. She felt that, by and large, the pupils that she saw were active participants in the lessons, and it was the intention of most teachers to achieve active pupil participation, however some achieved this more effectively than others. Class discussions: who does the discussing? She noted that there was a lot of discussion, but some teachers were better than others at allowing pupils to have a turn. She felt that the staff who used the whiteboards used them well to promote discussion. 10.4 The Pupils Attainment in National Testing. I chose not to explore pupil attainment in my research project, since this is addressed formally and systematically by the end of Key Stage 3 tests. Nevertheless, data concerning pupils progress against the Key Stage 3 attainment targets during the period of implementation of the Strategy provides useful background information, placing the results of this project in context. In this section, I will review such attainment data for the two populations of pupils involved in this project. Those pupils in the 2000-2001 Y8 sample (which I have called the comparison group) sat their Key Stage 3 Tests in May 2002. Of these pupils, 71% attained level 5 or above, compared with 67% nationally (DfES, 2002e). However, at the time of writing, the second Y8 cohort (2001-2002) has only just started Year 9, so KS3 test data are not available for them. Nevertheless, it is useful to review the results of this project in the light of the pupils Key Stage 3 attainment. I have used two sets of data (both derived from standard tests) to illustrate the potential for Key Stage 3 attainment: Key Stage 2 results Year 7 NFER CAT screening tests (Thorndike et al, 1986). These are tests of cognitive ability, used widely throughout Devon to provide base-line data on pupils expected academic progress. I have used attainment data for the members of each cohort as it was in Year 9, the year of end of Key Stage 3 tests and, in both cases, the school year after the research data was collected. Inevitably, there are problems associated with these data. Since pupils joined and left the school during Years 7 to 9, the populations varied during the progress of the Key Stage. Thus, the membership of the two sample populations for the research project is not identical (although very similar) to the membership of the two populations for which the following data are provided. Therefore, I will use these data illustratively, rather than for statistical inference. As the implementation of the Strategy progressed into Year 8 (with the second cohort), the department changed its methods of assessment. For the first cohort, Year 8 assessments were based on departmental tests and teachers assessments. Optional tests (see section 2.2.3) were used with the second cohort. These national tests resulted in a distribution of National Curriculum levels that was very different from the previous years. (See Appendix 10.4) Level Cohort 1 (Y8 00-01) Cohort 2 (Y8 01-02) 3 or less13.3%19.9%4 and above86.7%80.1%5 and above42.2%58.0%6 and above6.4%34.5%Table 10.4 Year 8 Teacher Assessments There are two problems with these data. The data for the first cohort were generated by teachers from internal tests and assessments, whereas those for the second cohort were taken directly from national Optional Tests. Hence, although the outcomes of both assessments are expressed in terms of National Curriculum levels, the assessment methods are different, and therefore not comparable. Teacher assessments were available for every pupil in the first cohort, whereas the optional test results were only available for just under three-quarters of the sample. (The Optional Tests were set on one day, so there were absentees. In addition, not all of the classes took the tests, so the populations for whom we have these data are not directly comparable.) Although these results appear to indicate a massive increase in attainment since the introduction of the Strategy, they are not reliable. Neither is there any evidence from teachers of such an increase in attainment. Therefore, I have decided to treat these results with extreme caution, and I will not draw any conclusions from the comparison of these two sets of data. 10.4.1 Key Stage 2 Results The following table gives the percentages of Y9 pupils from each cohort attaining each level in the Key Stage 2 tests. These figures do not apply to all of pupils in each cohort since the data were unavailable for a few pupils. However we have data from 392 pupils in the first cohort and 360 in the second, in each case a large majority of the cohort. The national figures are from the DfES Autumn Package (DfES, 2002e) Level Cohort 1 (KS2 99) School (national)Cohort 2 (KS2 00) School (national)20.5% (0%)0.3% (1%)324.7% (23%)18.3% (21%)454.6% (45%)56.9% (47%)520.2% (24%)24.4% (24%)4+74.8% (69%)81.3% (72%)Table 10.4.1 Key Stage 2 Results As the table shows, the Key Stage 2 attainment of both cohorts was not very different, with a tendency for the second cohort to have slightly higher levels of attainment in the tests, even when compared with national trends. It is noticeable that the proportion of pupils, from each cohort, attaining level four or higher (for which national targets are set) is above the national proportion. However, the proportion of pupils attaining level five or higher, is below the national proportion for the first cohort and roughly the same as the national proportion for the second cohort. Therefore, although the Key Stage 2 results for each cohort were broadly similar, there is an indication that the first cohort had fewer higher attainers. When a (2 test of goodness of fit is used on the KS2 data from the two cohorts, there is no statistical evidence that the levels for the second cohort are inconsistent with those for the first cohort (see appendix 10.4.1). NFER CAT Screening Tests These are tests of cognitive ability (Thorndike et al, 1986), used widely throughout Devon to provide base-line data on pupils expected academic progress. The results of these tests, taken at the beginning of Year 7, are used within the school to forecast the percentages of pupils attaining each level in the end of Key Stage 3 tests. Table 10.4.2 (below) gives the forecast Key Stage 3 results for each of the cohorts, as their populations stood in Year 9. More detailed results are given in appendix 10.4.2a. Level Cohort 1 (Y8 00-01) Cohort 2 (Y8 01-02) 3 and below7%9%4 and above93%91%5 and above69%67%6 and above35%37%Table 10.4.2 NFER CAT forecasts From the evidence of these screening tests, there was little difference between the predicted performance of the two cohorts. When a (2 test of goodness of fit is used on these forecasts, there is no statistical evidence that the results for the second cohort are inconsistent with those of the first (see appendix 10.4.2). At the time of writing, end of Key Stage 3 results were available for the first cohort only. The corresponding percentages in the KS3 tests for this cohort were: Level 4 and above: 90% Level 5 and above: 71% (nationally 67% (DfES, 2002e)) Level 6 and above: 42% (nationally 45% (ibid)) (The school results take account of thirteen absences (about 3%) who received no level and are treated as being below level 4.) The results for this cohort were better than the national results for level 5 and above, the level at which the government sets its targets (see section 2.1.1). However, at the higher levels (level 6 and above), the results were slightly behind national trends. This pattern is consistent with the Key Stage 2 results for this cohort (see table 10.4.1). The departments use of booster classes (see section 2.2.1) to support border-line level 5 pupils may have had some bearing on the number of students attaining level 5. However, these booster classes occurred after the Christmas holidays and the November teacher assessments indicated that 70% of the cohort were at level 5 or above (very close to the actual result of 71%). Therefore, there is no strong indication that the booster classes are the reason for this pattern of results. This observation is supported by the NFER forecasts. When the subgroup of the cohort which took both the NFER screening tests and the end of Key Stage 3 tests was considered, 69% were predicted a level 5 or above. 10.5 A Personal View of the Introduction of the Key Stage 3 Strategy in the School There have been several changes in the way that Key Stage 3 mathematics is taught in the sample school since the introduction of the Strategy. The most notable of these has been the adoption of the three-part lesson structure, which is also permeating Key Stage 4 lessons. The increased emphasis on mental and oral work has also had a major impact on lessons, especially for lower attainers. Hitherto, many of the lowest attaining pupils completed relatively little of the predominantly written work in their lessons. Now that there is more opportunity for oral work, they are able to participate more fully. These changes in approach to lesson organisation have been promoted by extensive INSET provision, most of it under the aegis of the LEA advisory service. There has been significant funding for this INSET from the Standards Fund. Some of this INSET has been in the form of courses attended by individual members of the department, who cascade the training to colleagues. A particularly welcome feature of the pattern of training has been in-house INSET, provided by the numeracy consultant, working closely with every member of the department. Colleagues have been supportive of each other in adopting the teaching approaches recommended by the Strategy, sharing ideas and offering advice and support. It is noticeable that, over the last two years, the four newly qualified teachers who have worked in the department were already familiar with the teaching framework of the Strategy and have collaborated effectively with longer-standing colleagues in their lesson preparation. Members of department are generally very positive about the introduction of the Strategy, and welcome an educational initiative that has classroom practice as its focus. The Strategy places particular emphasis on detailed planning of lessons (DfEE, 2001: 44-56). Departmental colleagues now devote much more of their time to planning which, of itself, is not a bad thing, but has caused a marked increase in work-load. The LEA advisory service has given the department strong guidance on the form and detail of planning required for the Strategy (as far as planning the wording of individual questions to be used in class). However, the school has recently introduced a requirement for all lessons to be planned in a different format: this has led to some frustration and a duplication of work. The medium term programmes of study (provided as exemplars for organising the yearly teaching programme) have been slightly modified and adopted by the department. Colleagues were pleased to be offered guidance about ordering the programme of study for the National Curriculum in a way that promotes curricular consistency, both with other secondary schools and with our feeder primary schools. As I noted earlier, in sections 9.5 and 10.1, one of my concerns about the Strategy is that the approaches to teaching described in the Framework may come to be treated as a prescriptive straightjacket. Schools are not obliged to adhere unerringly to the teaching approaches laid down in the Framework, (DfEE, 2001: 2); however I already detect a tendency for colleagues to treat certain teaching approaches associated with the Strategy (especially three-part lessons and regular mental and oral work) as sacrosanct. A mechanistic, checklist, application of the teaching approaches recommended for the Strategy will not necessarily lead to good teaching, and may lead to tedious and alienating experiences of learning mathematics. As well as exploring the teaching approaches outlined in the Framework, teachers must also be encouraged to use their creativity and imagination to offer other, perhaps very different, lesson structures and learning experiences which may be rich in mathematical opportunities and effective in promoting learning. Although the Framework encourages creativity in teaching approaches I fear that in future, heads of department may face the issue of having to encourage teachers to be adventurous and creative in stepping outside of the orthodoxy of the lesson structure promoted by the Framework. 10.6 A Contextual Review of the Research Findings In the previous chapters of this account, I have tried to be as objective as possible in discussing mathematics teaching at the sample school. In this chapter, I have used my understandings as head of department to describe how the Strategy has been implemented within the school. I will now review and interpret two of the results of this research project in the light of my experience as head of department. The results of the research project indicated that, at the very least, pupils attitudes and affective responses to mathematics had not deteriorated with the advent of the Strategy. This is supported by my experience as head of department. We now get relatively few parental queries about lack of progress in Y7, which may be viewed as an indication that fewer pupils are unhappy about their progress in mathematics. Our colleagues in primary schools also seem more comfortable with our mathematics provision. On the whole, pupils do not seem dissatisfied with their maths lessons, in particular, they appear to enjoy the interactive aspects. This conflicts with the relatively low attitudes scores for both populations. There was a degree of inconsistency between the teachers and the pupils responses concerning the teaching approaches used in lessons. It is tempting to suggest that the pupils responses are more reliable (they have nothing to lose): however as head of department, I believe that, broadly speaking, my colleagues have adapted their approaches in line with the Strategy. Certainly, the three-part lesson is by far the most common Key Stage 3 lesson structure and mental and oral starters are regular features of nearly all lessons. It is possible that this practice has grown over the period of the implementation of the Strategy (which had been formally in place for just 7 months at the time the second set of data were collected). It is also possible that the pupils were not as aware of the structure of their lessons as their teachers were and therefore less able to identify particular aspects of teaching practice. Alternatively, the teachers may be more aware of the intended structure of the lesson, whereas the pupils are only aware of the actual structure of the lesson. As I suggested earlier in the previous chapter (section 9.7), this may be redressed by teachers making their intended teaching and learning methods clear to their classes, in the same way that they make the learning outcomes clear. This will also encourage pupils to develop their metacognitive approaches to learning and doing mathematics. BIBLIOGRAPHY Ahmed, K. (2002) New Super A-level aims at star pupils, Guardian, 10th February, 2002, p5 Ajzen, I. (1988) Attitudes, Personality and Behavior, Milton Keynes: Open University Press Andrews, P. (1997) A Hungarian Perspective On Mathematics Education, Mathematics Teaching 161, December 1997, pp14-17 Andrews, P. & Sinkinson, A., (2000) Continuity, Coherence and Curricular Entitlement, Mathematics Teaching 172, September 2000 Anghileri, J. (2001) A of Progression in Written Calculation Strategies for Division, Support for Learning: British Journal for Learning Support, Vol. 16, No.1, February 2001, pp17-22 Askew, M. Brown, M. Rhodes, V. Johnson, D. Williams, D. (1997) Effective Teachers of Numeracy: Final Report, London: Kings College Beaton, A.E., Mullis, I.V.S., Martin, M.O., Gonzalez, E.J., Kelly, D.L., Smith, T.A. (1996) Mathematics Achievement in the Middle School Years: IEAs Third International Mathematics and Science , Chestnut Hill, Massachusetts: Boston College Beishuizen, M. (1997) Mental Arithmetic: Mental Recall or Mental Strategies, Mathematics Teaching 160, September 1997, pp16-19 Bell, A.W., Kuchemann, D. and Costello, J. (1983) a Review of Research in Mathematical Education: Part A, Teaching and Learning, Windsor: NFER-Nelson Bell, J. (1999) Doing Your Research Project, Buckingham: Open University Press Brown, M., Askew, M., Baker, D., Denvir, H., Millett, A. (1998) Is the National Numeracy Strategy Research-Based?, British Journal of Educational Studies, Vol. 46 No. 4 , pp362-385 Brown, M. (1999) Is More Whole Class Teaching The Answer?, Mathematics Teaching 169, December 1999, pp5-7 Calder, P. (2000) Learning From Romania And Hungary, Mathematics Teaching 171, June 2000, pp 13-15 Callaghan, J. (1976) What The PM Said (Text of Ruskin College Speech), Times Educational Supplement, 22nd October, 1976, p1 & p12 Carvell, J. (1999) Article, Guardian, 16th September 1999 Cohen, L. and Manion, L. (1994) Case Studies, Research Methods in Education, 4th edition, London: Routledge Cockcroft, W. H. (1982) Mathematics Counts, London: HMSO Costello, J. (1991) Teaching and Learning Mathematics 11-16, London: Routledge Costello, J. (2000) The National Numeracy Strategy: Evidence from the Research Base of Mathematics, Education Mathematics in School, March 2000, pp2-5 DCA, (2001) The National Strategy for Key Stage 3 (notes from the National Strategy launch 14/5/01), Devon: Devon Curriculum Advice Denscombe, M. (1998) The Good Research Guide, Buckingham: Open University Press Devon Curriculum Services (2002a) Key Stage 3 Strategy: Maths Newsletter, Spring 2002, Issue 17 Devon Curriculum Services (2002b) Key Stage 3 Strategy: Briefing for School Strategy Managers, (newsletter from February 2002) DES. (1983) Blueprint for Numeracy: An Employers Guide to the Cockcroft Report, Middlesex: DES DES. (1989) Mathematics in the National Curriculum, London: HMSO DES. (1991) Mathematics in the National Curriculum, London: HMSO DfEE. (1998a) Numeracy Matters, Suffolk: DfEE DfEE. (1998b) The Implementation of the National Numeracy Strategy: The Final Report of the Numeracy Task Force, Suffolk: DfEE DfEE. (1998c) The National Literacy Strategy: Framework for teaching, Suffolk: DfEE DfEE. (1999) The National Numeracy Strategy: framework for teaching mathematics: from Reception to Year 6, Suffolk: DFEE DfEE (2000a) The National Numeracy Strategy: Conference Handbook, London: DFEE DfEE. (2000b) The National Numeracy Strategy: framework for teaching mathematics: Year 7, Suffolk: DFEE DFEE. (2000c) The National Numeracy Strategy: framework for teaching mathematics: Years 7 to 9 (Draft), Suffolk: DFEE DfEE (2001) Key Stage 3 National Strategy: Framework for teaching mathematics: Years 7, 8 and 9, Suffolk: DfEE DFEE (2001d) Key Stage Three National Strategy Framework for teaching mathematics: Years 7, 8 and 9 Management summary, London: DFEE DfEE (2001e) Key Stage Three National Strategy Framework for teaching English: Years 7, 8 and 9, Suffolk: DFEE DfES. (2001) Key Stage 3 National Strategy: Leading development in mathematics 1: course handbook, London: DfES DfES. (2001b) Key Stage 3 National Strategy: Numeracy across the curriculum: Notes for school-based training, Suffolk: DfES DfES. (2002) Key Stage 3 National Strategy: Leading development in mathematics 2: course handbook, London: DfES DfES. (2002b) powerpoint presentation, http://standards5.dfesstandardssite.net/keystage3/year2genv2.PPT DfES. (2002c) http://www.standards.dfes.gov.uk/keystage3/faq/?faq_id=1485#Q1 DfES (2002d) Year nine Booster Sessions (Powerpoint slide from Standards Website on 14/3/02 at  HYPERLINK http://standards5.dfesstandardssite.net/keystage3/year2genv2.PPT http://standards5.dfesstandardssite.net/keystage3/year2genv2.PPT DfES (2002e), Autumn Package: archive of results as at 14/11/02 http://www.standards.dfes.gov.uk/performance/ks3nsrdoc.pdf?version=1 DfES (2002f), Key Stage 3 National Strategy: Year 9 booster kit: mathematics supplement 11/02 DfES 0015/2002, Suffolk: DfES Earl, L., Levin B., Leithwood, K., Fullan, M., Watson, N. with Torrance, N., Jentzi, D. and Mascall, B. (2001) Watching and Learning : Second Annual Report: OISE/UT Evaluation of the Implementation of the National Literacy and the National Numeracy Strategies, Toronto: OISE/UT Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, University of Toronto Ernest, P. (2000) The Mathematics Curriculum (unpublished course notes), Exeter University School of Education Ernest, P. (2000b) Research Methodology in Mathematics Education (unpublished course notes), Exeter University School of Education Golding, J. (2001) The National Numeracy Strategy: Thoughts from a Secondary Classroom, Mathematics in School, January 2001, pp2-3. Harries, T. (1997) Reflections On A Mathematics Lesson in Kapsovar, Mathematics Teaching, 161, 11-13 Howson, G. (1989) Maths problem: Can more Pupils Reach Higher Standards?, London: Centre For Policy Studies Hoyles, C. (1982) The Pupils View of Learning Mathematics, Educational studies in Mathematics, 13, pp349-372 Keys, W., Harris, S. & Fernandes, C. (1997) Third International Mathematics and Science : First National Report Part 2: Patterns of Mathematics and Science Teaching in Lower Secondary Schools in England and Ten Other Countries, Berkshire: NFER Marsh, M. (1999) Conference Report: The Teaching of Arithmetic in England and the Netherlands, Equals Vol. 5 No. 3, pp14-17 Mathematics Association, (2000) Response to the Consultation on the National Numeracy Strategy, MA News, No 112 June 2000, pp3-4 McLeod, D. (1992) Research on Affect in Mathematics Education: A Reconceptualization, in Grouw, D. A. (Ed) (1992) Handbook of Research on Mathematics Teaching and Learning, New York: Macmillan, 575-596 Numeracy Task Force (1998) National Numeracy Strategy: An Annotated Bibliography for Teachers and Schools, Suffolk: DfEE Ofsted, (2000) The National Numeracy Strategy: an interim evaluation, HMI 221, March 2000, London: Ofsted Publications Ofsted, (2002) The Key Stage 3 Strategy: evaluation of the first year of the pilot, HMI 349, February 2002, London: Ofsted Reynolds, D. & Muijs, D. (1998) National Numeracy Strategy: An annotated Bibliography for Teachers and Schools, Suffolk: DfEE Ruddock, G. (2000) The Third International Mathematics and Science Repeat (TIMSS-R): First National Report, Windsor: NFER Ruffell, M. Mason, J & Allen, B. (1998) ing attitudes to Mathematics, Educational Studies in Mathematics, 35, 1-18 Siegel, S. (1956) Nonparametric Statistics for the Behavioural Sciences, Tokyo: McGraw-Hill Kogakusha TES, (2000a) Woodhead Hails Primary Progress, December 1st, p4 TES, (2000b) So Who Should Go Forth and Multiply?, November 24th, p21 TES, (2000c) Maths Scores Still Spoil the Picture, December 8th, p11 TES, (2000e) The True Value of the National Numeracy Strategy, from Curriculum Special, September 22nd, p14 TES. (2000f) Woodhead Hails Primary Progress, December 1st: p4 TES, (2001a) Primary Strategies Mature in Secondaries, February 2nd, p17 TES, (2001b) Word is Out the KS3 Strategy is a Winner, March 30th, p19 TES, (2001c) Key Stage Fright Grips Ministers, May 4th, p10 TES, (2001d) Union Calls for Audits Boycott, July 6th, p8 TES, (2002a) Estelle Morris Quits, October 25th, p1 TGAT. (1988) National Curriculum Task Group on Assessment and Testing: A Report, London: DES Thompson, I. (2000) Is the National Numeracy Strategy Evidence-Based?, Mathematics Teaching 171, 23-27 Thorndike, R. L., Hagen, E. and France, N. (1986) Cognitive Abilities Test Levels A to F: Second Edition: Administration Manual, Windsor: NFER-Nelson Tickly, C. (2000) The Maths We Need Now, Education Journal, October 2000, 24-25 TIMSS website ( HYPERLINK http://ustimss.msu.edu/ http://ustimss.msu.edu/) Triandis, H. C. (1971) Attitude and Attitude Change, New York: Wiley Wilson, P. (2001) Pupils Perceptions Of Mathematics And Experiences Of Classroom Practice Pilot, unpublished assignment for Exeter University PAGE 1 PAGE 223  EMBED Excel.Sheet.8   EMBED Excel.Sheet.8  G Y a E ./:;Dn*LK""&"J"""""""#((#(222J;Q;;3G4G?J@JJJgNiNQR\'\ffhhBwB*H*phhBw6B*phhBwB*KHphhBw>*B*phhBwB*phhBw6B*CJphhBwB*CJphhBwB*ph hBwCJhBwB3G H I J D $ & Fda$dd$da$$da$$da$$da$IIID E  C./:;DEZ[no & F p^p` & Fdd $ & Fda$$da$o@uv3Lm*Li| ^` 0^`0$a$ & F & F%Kk_-=>Wr$a$ ^`#AUf~GYlCVn;\@[lm ) N b c } 3!S! ^` & FdS!x!!!""L"M"""""""""##A#B#c#d##### p0^`0 & F ^`#$$=$>$g$h$$$$$$$/%0%h%i%%%%%&&B&C&&&& O^O` & F&&''8'9'p'q'''''(((#($(^(}((((()Q))) O^O` & F & F p^p`))*8*a****+.+W+++++,G,p,,,,-=-f---- .3.\.\..../:/m///090l000181k11112225556m6 & F dd$da$m6?7@7;;??RDSDBGCGdGGHtHHHH4IIIJ?JLJMJd $ & F da$$da$dMJJJJJQQQRWWZZ\\aahh{l|llxmmmm$n & F d$da$ & F ddhiijjnlollloo&pRpMNZ[ׁ؁ւׂ؂ق΄IT·݈JZ]n͊Vxӌ8K):pő ۖk}àϠYhBwhBw>*B*phhBw6B*phhBw>*B*CJphhBwB*phhBw6B*CJphhBwB*CJphJ$nrnnnn p!p"pSpotptyy{{~ eׁ؁ւׂ؂$a$ & F dd & F d:;΄݈ވtߍ(Lڎ8ۏ܏ & Fd & Fd & Fd & Fd$da$ & Fdd܏IJ͕ "G^ޙLMϠ$da$ ?d^`? & Fd 0d^`0dϠڦۦBCJy|lkd$$Ifl0 Ya04 lah d$If$da$dyz d$Iflkd$$Ifl0 Ya04 lah d$Iflkd.$$Ifl0 Ya04 lahG$Iflkd$$Ifl0 Ya04 lahGHIRSdګzլ߳ $ & Fda$dlkd\$$Ifl0 Ya04 lahYdګլRc*FS|V^ɵҵýƽ ;<BP[\(*49H| QUajRbEH1A GKw*/hBw>*B*CJphhBw6B*phhBwB*CJphhBwB*phhBw>*B*phQ߳z{|',Ew»ɻ & F & F & Fdd & Fd)Hvüļ_yuvQR & F4dd  & Fe^e`YZfEFGwwx$a$$da$ & Fdhd^h & F dd/Mx~uI :I fpcjl4E5 5f,? /p{hBw>*B*phhBw6B*CJphhBw>*B*CJphhBwB*CJphhBwB*phhBw6B*phLIJ _`Y & Fdd$da$d$a$Wc}bN{ & Fd & Fdhd^h & Fddhd`h & Fd^/ [ \   O   l    $ & F:d^a$ & F8d $ & F8da$ $ & F7da$$ & F"ed^e`a$ & F!d & F d$da$ & Fd^>G J Y b       l nqcy+IXs_f&&&&'''$'3'''''('(;(C((((((g)o)r))))1+W+hBw>*B*phhBw>*B*CJphhBw6B*CJphhBw6B*phhBwB*phhBwB*CJphLgh6R.u $hd^ha$ $hd`ha$ $ & F&da$d$da$ V^`Vq[\]yXs^_`C$da$  & Fh^h $hd`ha$dhd^h & F&d $hd^ha$Cy\ !!j""#$$&&&&'$'P''(3(;( $ & F*da$d $ & F)da$$da$d & F0d & F,d;((((g))))[,\,],,]1^1_11e2~22222313=3 $ & F.da$d$da$ $ & F-da$ $ & F+da$W+c,,....y////]1_1e11111111e2=3k33v4w4488;[F^FIQQ[[HaIaddhhhh-i.i/ipp"r1rFrSrrrrsssuuzzzzp}}hBw>*B*CJphjhBwB*UphhBw6B*CJphhBwB*phhBwB*CJphhBw6B*phhBw>*B*phhBwB*phD=3k3333v444448888;;FFIIQQQV & F>d$da$dd & F.d $ & F.da$ & F.VV[[[[]]Haiaja!e"eff.i/i ppssssxxu$a$$da$d}ҁtvw{ǐϐ ![g>J!-U`gh)]^%KQSZ]c$7'(ɿɿɿɿɿɿɿɿ hBw6 hBw>*hBwhBw>*B*CJphhBwB*CJphhBw>*B*phhBw6B*phhBwB*phKuvwEF IJ[>*]^ & F<d$da$dϩ89MNԱ#e v$da$ & F=dd & F;dv 7yz.|}vw & F@dd & F?d bl-=&0au\]^kltTi")AKx7L_`ѻѯۥۥۥۥۘjhBwB*UphhBw6B*phhBw>*B*CJphhBw6B*CJphhBw>*B*phhBwB*CJphhBwB*phhBwB*ph hBwCJ hBw>*hBw hBw67[\]kltu6[/Ht $ & FOda$ $ & FJda$ $ & FIda$$da$d$a$d|}~NOPjrst23M? & FBddd$da$vb"o"))))////11112"2,2@2O2222223@3T3\333333n4v4y44455=>6>@>??@)@ѽѧѧѽѽѽѽѽѽhBw6B*CJphhBw6B*phhBw>*B*CJphhBwB*CJphhBw>*B*phhBwB*phhBw0JB*phjhBwB*UphjhBwB*Uph=TGw+S5p & FS & FL$da$ & FKd & FKddpqr}~ !!!I!o!!!!"""(###3$x$y$m&&d p`^p```& 'h''((L(((,)q)))))////1111 $ & F)da$$da$ p`^p```dd` p`d^p``12@2l2223L3T3333n4455[5\5g5u555555d $ & F-da$ $ & F+da$$da$ $ & F*da$d55555577 :!:BBDDJEEE}F`HH|IgJhJnLoLpLLd $ & FNda$$da$)@DDJEeEEEEE}FF`H{HHI|IIgJnLuLLLQQ*B*phhBwhBw6B*phhBw>*B*CJphhBwB*phhBw6B*CJphhBwB*CJphHLOOTTBZCZU^V^bbdddehhjjjjkkellbm $ & FRda$d$da$dbm0nnnnnnjpkpwp s!s4suuu w wwxxi{j{~~@A h$da$ $ & FRda$||@CGNCD͆=uv ΎЎ'Đϑӑ( LSȓL[p"(6չչչչչչݴݬݙչչjhBwU$jd@ hBwCJUVmHnHujhBwU hBw>*hBw6B*phhBw>*B*phhBwB*phhBwB*phhBw hBw>*CJhBwB*CJph hBwCJ hBw6CJ8ABN͆=>ΎώЎŐɓ$da$dd $ uda$$da$[\7K67ؘ'mno d$If & FWd 0d^`0$da$d67tٝڝϞˣ!, X`)1608BF~ %-S^  & , v ~  !!9!T!""""##b#n###$$X%_% hBw6 hBwCJjhBwU hBw>***ĜȜ̜МԜܜ<FfC d$If   "&*./159=AEIMQUV[_Ff'Ff.Ff5 d$If_cgkosw{FfFf  d$Ifŝɝ͝Νϝٝ!zϞ̣@r $da$dFf d$If !&+05lcccc d$Ifkd"$$Ifl\ 8>|04 laM56AEIMlcccc d$Ifkd"$$Ifl\ 8>|04 laMMNY:;Χ-Tild________d$da$kd#$$Ifl\ 8>|04 laM i+,9BOZ[`ej^kdg$$$Ifl\ 8>|04 laM d$Ifd jop{ckd*%$$Ifl\ 8>|04 laM d$If5ڭ"^ld___RRRR 0d^`0d$da$kd%$$Ifl\ 8>|04 laM ^¯ͯίӯدݯ^kd&$$Ifl\ 8>|04 laM d$Ifd lcccc d$Ifkds'$$Ifl\ 8>|04 laMABKld____RRR 0d^`0d$da$kd6($$Ifl\ 8>|04 laM  #Vkd($$Ifl\ 8>|04 laM d$If 0d^`0 #()48<@ckd)$$Ifl\ 8>|04 laM d$If@ALMopqtx|ld___VVVV d$Ifd$da$kd*$$Ifl\ 8>|04 laM |}lcccc d$IfkdB+$$Ifl\04 lalcccc d$Ifkd+$$Ifl\04 laƷ˷зշlcccc d$Ifkd,$$Ifl\04 laշַlcccc d$Ifkd7-$$Ifl\04 la lcccc d$Ifkd-$$Ifl\04 la!%)-lcccc d$Ifkd.$$Ifl\04 la-.:;V߽ldd_______d$da$kd,/$$Ifl\04 la )2?JKPUZ_^kd/$$Ifl\ 8>|04 laM d$Ifd _`koswlcccc d$Ifkd0$$Ifl\ 8>|04 laMwx  lge`WWWWW d$Ifd$a$kdY1$$Ifl\ 8>|04 laM  %*/4YPPPPP d$Ifkd2$$IflrO " 04 la45IMQUYYPPPPP d$Ifkd2$$IflrO " 04 laYZglqv{YPPPPP d$Ifkd3$$IflrO " 04 la{|YPPPPP d$Ifkdn4$$IflrO " 04 laYPPPPP d$Ifkd45$$IflrO " 04 la¿ԿؿܿYPPPPP d$Ifkd5$$IflrO " 04 lanYQQLLLLLd$da$kd6$$IflrO " 04 lanG.X @3}G %d^`%d` 0d^`0d !%)-:;AKkd7$$Iflr7J ]u04 la d$IfdAFKPUVbfjmPkd_8$$Iflr7J ]u04 la d$If mqr},-PHCCCCd$da$kd89$$Iflr7J ]u04 la d$If567;?LMRW\^kd:$$Ifl\7 9VVVW04 la d$Ifd \abmquyckd:$$Ifl\7 9VVVW04 la d$IfyzHI VBld________d$da$kd_;$$Ifl\7 9VVVW04 la BOzP,|jklptx| d$If 0d^`0dFfCFf~@ d$IfFf+= "#().38=BGLQVW\]hlptFfgJFfG d$Iftx|Hk d$da$FfM d$If  !&YPPPPP d$IfkdO$$Iflr< 4 04 la&'37;?CYPPPPP d$Ifkd|P$$Iflr< 4 04 laCDOPRYQLLLLLLd$da$kdQ$$Iflr< 4 04 la^kdQ$$Ifl\ nV>04 lah d$Ifd lcccc d$Ifkd[R$$Ifl\ nV>04 lahwxKLldd______d$da$kdS$$Ifl\ nV>04 lah LMQUbchmrwckdS$$Ifl\ nV>04 lah d$If wxlcccc d$IfkdPT$$Ifl\ nV>04 lah34Dldd_______d$da$kdT$$Ifl\ nV>04 lah DEFJN[\afkp^kdU$$Ifl\ nV>04 lah d$Ifd pq|lcccc d$IfkdEV$$Ifl\ nV>04 lahijhild____RR 0d^`0d$da$kdV$$Ifl\ nV>04 lahijnrckdW$$Ifl\ nV>04 lah d$If lcccc d$Ifkd:X$$Ifl\ nV>04 lah|}Hld_____VV d$Ifd$da$kdX$$Ifl\ nV>04 lah ckdY$$Ifl\ nV>04 lah d$Iflcccc d$Ifkd/Z$$Ifl\ nV>04 lah9:0rld______R 0d^`0d$da$kdZ$$Ifl\ nV>04 lah PQRVZ^bfk d$If 0d^`0 klrw|3*** d$Ifkd}[$$Ifl֞ F5 h04 la| d$If3*** d$IfkdE\$$Ifl֞ F5 h04 la d$Ifs3++&d$da$kd ]$$Ifl֞ F5 h04 last>i(h567;?CGKOSX d$If 0d^`0dXY kd]$$Ifl e q#| xYYYZYYYZ0$$$$4 laY_dinsx} d$If  kd^$$Ifl e q#| xYYYZYYYZ0$$$$4 la d$If  kd_$$Ifl e q#| xYYYZYYYZ0$$$$4 laFGIRUX[^adgjmn{Ffb d$Ifd$da$ FfiFf{f d$If+/37;?CGKOPY\_behknqtuFf~sFfo d$IfFfl FfkzFfgw d$If !26:>BFJNRVW`cfilorux{|FfjFfFfo} d$If FfWFfS d$If"'(9=@DHLPTX\]gh 0h /{d$da$Ff_Ff[ d$If{  S-.1g1h 0d^`0d&}]FGHf9G  )!m"""b##4$$a%5&'''d & FUd & FTdd_%%%'''*(*O*W*******x//1111Z2[233x5y5{536:;nQwQSSXYYYB`]`ccVgdgjjjkqqwwww$l} hBwCJhBwB*phhBw6B*phhBwB*phjghBwU$j @ hBwCJUVmHnHujhBwU hBw>* hBwCJhBwB*ph hBw6hBw>'''''***)*****6+7+-.n.../P///\0 0d^`0$da$d$a$$da$d\0000!3S3333334444 44444444#4'4+4Ff d$If$da$d 0d^`0+4/43474;4?4C4G4H4N4R4V4Z4^4b4f4j4n4r4s4t4x4|444444Ff١Ff d$If444444444444444444444444444FfĪFf˧FfҤ d$If4444455 5 5555555 5$5(5,5054555x5z55546d$da$FfFf d$If466667:::; < <_<<<<<<<< d$Ifd<<<<<<lcccc d$Ifkd²$$Ifl\ 8>|04 laM<<== ==lcccc d$Ifkd$$Ifl\ 8>|04 laM==== >!>>>>> ?ldd_______d$da$kdH$$Ifl\ 8>|04 laM ?5?6?C?L?Y?d?e?j?o?t?^kd $$Ifl\ 8>|04 laM d$Ifd t?y?z?????ckdε$$Ifl\ 8>|04 laM d$If????AA B^BBBldd___RRR 0d^`0d$da$kd$$Ifl\ 8>|04 laM B4C=D>DKDTDaDlDmDrDQkdT$$Ifl\ 8>|04 laM d$Ifd 0d^`0 rDwD|DDDDDDDckd$$Ifl\ 8>|04 laM d$IfDDDDFFqGGH`Hldd___RRR 0d^`0d$da$kdڸ$$Ifl\ 8>|04 laM `HaHnHwHHHHHHHH^kd$$Ifl\ 8>|04 laM d$Ifd HHHHHHlcccc d$Ifkd`$$Ifl\ 8>|04 laMHHHLL`MMM$N`NaNld________d$da$kd#$$Ifl\ 8>|04 laM aNnNwNNNNNNNNckd$$Ifl\ 8>|04 laM d$If NNNNNNlcccc d$Ifkd$$Ifl\ 8>|04 laMNNNNjQxQRRESySlge``````d$a$kdl$$Ifl\ 8>|04 laM ySSSTTTTT UV VGVVVHWXXXY?YYYSZZZZZ d$If & FYdd 0d^`0ZZZZZZZZZZPkd/$$Iflr7J ]u04 la d$If ZZ[[[ [[YPPPPP d$Ifkd$$Iflr7J ]u04 la[[[[]]l^^^YQLLLLLLd$da$kd$$Iflr7J ]u04 la^^^^^_____ _^kd$$Ifl\7 9VVVW04 la d$Ifd _%_&_1_5_9_=_ckda$$Ifl\7 9VVVW04 la d$If=_>_I_```aLaaabld________d$da$kd$$Ifl\7 9VVVW04 la bCb|bb c8clccdYddd:eeeeeeeeeeeeeff d$If 0d^`0df f fffff$f)f.f3f8f=fBfCfNfRfVfZf^fbfffjfnfrfvfwfFfzFf'Ff d$Ifwfxf|ffffffffffffffffffffffffffFfFf d$IfffffffffggggjjjkkkmmHnrnnooo o & FXdd$da$Ff[ d$If o$o1o5o6o04 lah d$Ifd rrrrrslcccc d$Ifkd$$Ifl\ nV>04 lahssssssstitjtldd_____V d$Ifd$da$kd$$Ifl\ nV>04 lah jtntrtttttttckdR$$Ifl\ nV>04 lah d$Ifttttttlcccc d$Ifkd$$Ifl\ nV>04 lahtttxxyyzzzld_____VV d$Ifd$da$kd$$Ifl\ nV>04 lah zz(z)z.z3z8z=zckdG$$Ifl\ nV>04 lah d$If=z>zIzMzQzUzlcccc d$Ifkd$$Ifl\ nV>04 lahUzVzazbz%{&{{{$|%|ldd_____V d$Ifd$da$kd$$Ifl\ nV>04 lah %|)|-|:|;|@|E|J|O|ckd<$$Ifl\ nV>04 lah d$IfO|P|[|_|c|g|lcccc d$Ifkd$$Ifl\ nV>04 lahg|h|s|O~P~~abdld______]d$da$kd$$Ifl\ nV>04 lah deimz{ckd1$$Ifl\ nV>04 lah d$If lcccc d$Ifkd$$Ifl\ nV>04 lahxłGldd______d$da$kd$$Ifl\ nV>04 lah GЃ%&()-159=B d$Ifd 0d^`0 BCINS3*** d$Ifkd&$$Ifl֞ F5 h04 laSX]bg d$Ifghtx|3*** d$Ifkd$$Ifl֞ F5 h04 la| d$If3+&&d$da$kd$$Ifl֞ F5 h04 labۆ:kŇ   d$If 0d^`0d kd~$$Ifl e q#| xYYYZYYYZ0$$$$4 la%*/49>CHM d$If MN kdr$$Ifl e q#| xYYYZYYYZ0$$$$4 laNZ^bfjnrvz d$If z{ kdf$$Ifl e q#| xYYYZYYYZ0$$$$4 la{fgh~}~ŎʎFf; d$Ifd$da$ʎώԎَގߎ #(-27<AFKPFf(Ff$ d$If $AGҝݝӦ !qy&KfAMͲزv{0@E45JK`avwθϸ()?@VWmnɹj hBwCJhBwB*phhBwB*ph hBw>* hBw6hBw hBwCJTPQbfjnrvz~ÏFf'Ff> d$IfFf,Ïȏ͏ҏ׏܏ */49>CHMFfFf d$IfMRWXimquy}Ff Ff*Ff d$IfŐʐϐԐِސ   %)*5:?DINFfFf d$IfNSX]bctx|AuĒlmRd$da$FfFf d$If+s,|əʙ788f*v+,e 0d^`0d)n(mԦƧsS  +IƮ;L & FUd & FTd 0d^`0dLűAZETU $4 d$Ifdd & FUed^e` & FUd458=AFJWNNNNN d$Ifkd$$IflrZ u^^^_04 laJKNSW\`WNNNNN d$Ifkd$$IflrZ u^^^_04 la`adimrvWNNNNN d$Ifkd$$IflrZ u^^^_04 lavwzWNNNNN d$IfkdS$$IflrZ u^^^_04 laWNNNNN d$Ifkd$$IflrZ u^^^_04 laWNNNNN d$Ifkd$$IflrZ u^^^_04 laŸʸθWNNNNN d$Ifkd$$IflrZ u^^^_04 laθϸҸ׸۸WNNNNN d$IfkdW$$IflrZ u^^^_04 laWNNNNN d$Ifkd $$IflrZ u^^^_04 la WNNNNN d$Ifkd $$IflrZ u^^^_04 la$(WNNNNN d$Ifkd!$$IflrZ u^^^_04 la()-26;?WNNNNN d$Ifkd["$$IflrZ u^^^_04 la?@DIMRVWNNNNN d$Ifkd#$$IflrZ u^^^_04 laVW[`dimWNNNNN d$Ifkd#$$IflrZ u^^^_04 lamnrw{WNNNNN d$Ifkd$$$IflrZ u^^^_04 laWNNNNN d$Ifkd_%$$IflrZ u^^^_04 laWNNNNN d$Ifkd &$$IflrZ u^^^_04 laŹɹWNNNNN d$Ifkd&$$IflrZ u^^^_04 laɹʹԹչdefWOJJJJJJd$da$kd'$$IflrZ u^^^_04 laL:NOPtg  `/0!"DEdTsCMgz7?0?J%/&-sz^no!"r#w#w%%%%G)M)55:;?<=E3EFFdGnGGGsHHIIeImIIIJJNKSKM$MMM.P*hBwRY=>?M FfD* d$Ifd !159=AEIMQUV`ejoty~Ff54Ff11Ff-. d$If Ff0;FfG7 d$If$)*:>BFJNRVZ^_insx}FfBFf? d$If FfLFf3H d$IfFf!E$).389IMPTX\`dhlmw|Ff SFfP d$IfFTd$da$FfYFf V d$IfJabcz#$au d$Ifd 0d^`0 YPPPPP d$Ifkd[$$Iflr7J ]u04 la  !$(YPPPPP d$Ifkd[$$Iflr7J ]u04 la()49>CHYPPPPP d$Ifkd\$$Iflr7J ]u04 laHIUY]aeYPPPPP d$Ifkd]$$Iflr7J ]u04 laefqrEYQLLLLLLd$da$kd}^$$Iflr7J ]u04 la^kdV_$$Ifl\7 9VVVW04 la d$Ifd lcccc d$Ifkd_$$Ifl\7 9VVVW04 lalcccc d$Ifkd`$$Ifl\7 9VVVW04 la lcccc d$IfkdKa$$Ifl\7 9VVVW04 la ald________d$da$kda$$Ifl\7 9VVVW04 la aO ?,q b d$If 0d^`0d !",048<@DHLPTFfgFfc d$IfTU_dinsx}Ff qFfm d$IfFfdj  %&048<FfwFfUt d$If<@DHLPQUV`ejoty~Ff6~Ffz d$If7a&*d$da$Ff d$If*+6;@EJYPPPPP d$Ifkd$$Iflr< 4 04 laJKW[_cgYPPPPP d$IfkdK$$Iflr< 4 04 laghsx}YPPPPP d$Ifkd$$Iflr< 4 04 laYPPPPP d$Ifkd$$Iflr< 4 04 lauYQLLLLLLd$da$kd$$Iflr< 4 04 la9:>BOPZ_di^kd$$Ifl\ nV>04 lah d$Ifd ijvz~lcccc d$Ifkdb$$Ifl\ nV>04 lahlcccc d$Ifkd $$Ifl\ nV>04 lahlcccc d$Ifkd$$Ifl\ nV>04 lah^_ld_______d$da$kdW$$Ifl\ nV>04 lah _`dhuvckd$$Ifl\ nV>04 lah d$If lcccc d$Ifkd$$Ifl\ nV>04 lahlcccc d$IfkdL$$Ifl\ nV>04 lahlcccc d$Ifkd$$Ifl\ nV>04 lahld_______d$da$kd$$Ifl\ nV>04 lah  $(56@EJOckdA$$Ifl\ nV>04 lah d$If OP[_cflcccc d$Ifkd$$Ifl\ nV>04 lahfgqv{lcccc d$Ifkd$$Ifl\ nV>04 lahlcccc d$Ifkd6$$Ifl\ nV>04 lah-zld_____R_ 0d^`0d$da$kdݏ$$Ifl\ nV>04 lah ckd$$Ifl\ nV>04 lah d$If  lcccc d$Ifkd+$$Ifl\ nV>04 lah%*/4lcccc d$Ifkdґ$$Ifl\ nV>04 lah45AEIMlcccc d$Ifkdy$$Ifl\ nV>04 lahMNYZ45 E F ld_______d$da$kd $$Ifl\ nV>04 lah F G K O \ ] h m r w ckdǓ$$Ifl\ nV>04 lah d$If w x     lcccc d$Ifkdn$$Ifl\ nV>04 lah      lcccc d$Ifkd$$Ifl\ nV>04 lah      lcccc d$Ifkd$$Ifl\ nV>04 lah     !    Y ld_______d$da$kdc$$Ifl\ nV>04 lah Y  789=AEIMR d$Ifd 0d^`0 RS^ch3*** d$Ifkd $$Ifl֞ F5 h04 lahmrw| d$If|}3*** d$Ifkdҗ$$Ifl֞ F5 h04 la d$If3*** d$Ifkd$$Ifl֞ F5 h04 la d$If3*** d$Ifkdb$$Ifl֞ F5 h04 la d$If[3+&&d$da$kd*$$Ifl֞ F5 h04 la[\&QPQRVZ^bfjns d$If 0d^`0dst kd$$Ifl e q#| xYYYZYYYZ0$$$$4 lat d$If  kd$$Ifl e q#| xYYYZYYYZ0$$$$4 la d$If  kdڜ$$Ifl e q#| xYYYZYYYZ0$$$$4 la d$If   kdΝ$$Ifl e q#| xYYYZYYYZ0$$$$4 la !%)-15 d$If 56 kdž$$Ifl e q#| xYYYZYYYZ0$$$$4 la6A[\^~&'!"I"J""""""""" d$If$da$d & F`dd$da$""""""""""""""""""### ######FfFfFf d$If#'#,#1#6#;#@#E#J#O#T#U#f#j#n#r#w#{###########FfFf d$If####################$$ $$$$$$Ff^Ffu d$If$ $*$/$4$9$>$C$H$M$R$W$X$i$m$q$u$y$}$$$$$$$$$FfjFff d$IfFfb$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$%% % %%%%Ff<FfS d$If%%!%"%,%1%6%;%@%E%J%O%T%Y%Z%k%o%s%w%|%%%%%%%%$da$FfHFfDFf@ d$If%''**+k+++,S,,,-_---.r.B2C2223b3335 0d^`0d55556i7O8d9:;?<====>>?7?N??hd^h  & F^d^ & F]d$da$ $ & FTda$$ & FTed^e`a$ & FTdd?%BCD%GG\HIUJJ=LD hBw6 hBw>*hBw hBw>*CJ hBw6CJ hBwCJW}'(4rsИ $ & Fcda$ $ & Fbda$ h$da$Иř8$:,R34klm|: & Ff $ & Fdda$$da$ $ & Fcda$abڴ۴~2 & Fgddd$da$ & Fe^?KRZMd<DkDzunA  EL;FKS- 6 !!""*$3$u$|$%%&F&H&]&0'@-B-- hBwCJH* hBwH* jchBw hBw6 hBw>*hBw hBwCJhBwB*phR2WXYGHd kh`h & Fjd & Fgdk+?F34\]$If & Fh $hd^ha$ $ & Fjda$ }wnn $$Ifa$$IfkdP$$Ifl+F 0    4 la  &}wnn $$Ifa$$Ifkd$$Ifl+F 0    4 la&'39?}wnn $$Ifa$$Ifkd$$Ifl+F 0    4 la?@LQW}wnn $$Ifa$$Ifkd9$$Ifl+F 0    4 laWX~w }xvvqqvvvvkk$If & Fk$a$kd$$Ifl+F 0    4 la  wnn $$Ifa$kd$$Ifl+F b>"0    4 la$If&2}wnn $$Ifa$$Ifkd0$$Ifl+F b>"0    4 la235AM}wnn $$Ifa$$Ifkd$$Ifl+F b>"0    4 laMNP\h}wnn $$Ifa$$Ifkd$$Ifl+F b>"0    4 lahilx}wnn $$Ifa$$IfkdC$$Ifl+F b>"0    4 lamn}xvvqvkkk$If & Fi$a$kd$$Ifl+F b>"0    4 la }wnn $$Ifa$$Ifkd$$Ifl+F 0    4 la}wnn $$Ifa$$IfkdH$$Ifl+F 0    4 la}wnn $$Ifa$$Ifkd$$Ifl+F 0    4 la }wnn $$Ifa$$Ifkd$$Ifl+F 0    4 la/tu0fz{: ; < }xvvvvvvvvvvv$a$kd1$$Ifl+F 0    4 la <  wxz{|}T U %%%%%%%%%&&\&]&$a$$da$]&&&/'0'''o(p((())k*l*++R+S+ , ,t,u,,,[-\---$a$d-----A.B11T8U888888<==>A1BJDLDDDDDCEEEEEEEFFTFVFFFFFFFHHHHHHHIIIIIIIIIIIIhBw0JmHnHu hBw0JjhBw0JUjMhBwCJU hBw>*CJhBw0JCJjhBwCJUjhBwCJU hBwH*hBw hBwCJ hBwCJH*=-..A.B...)/*////0`0a000A1B1111111t2u222$a$ & F2D3E33333u4v444l5m555N6O666=7>7e7777778 $@&]a$$a$88'9l9m999C;D;;;7<8<<<"=#=====>>u?v???@d] $@&]a$@@=A>AAA1B2BBB1C2CCCDDQDRDDDDDKELEEEEEd$a$ $@&]a$EF F\F]FFFFF+G,GGG+H,H|H}HHHIIIIIIII&`#$ $ r ]a$$a$IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIǿ஦jhBwU jy@ hBwUVmHnHuj"hBwU j_&@ hBwUVmHnHujhBwUhBw hBw0JjhBw0JUh{T0JmHnHuIIIIIIIIII '0P. A!"n#$%n$7|ɋOPt M:ϥPNG  IHDR8afgAMA pHYs99: IDATx[sH&%$Ysfu_vme_iuV3=]E23YgúiY$w#"ff&"":NS6M<<֘yV}^UE@]CDRDZn4Hz4Mi};mvE|֧oɨjkDwhA s+ĭs39#.|:X%"Zkr:}ff~=p_[DS6IˑUUZz-J.v̚3ys"4Y}z_D˿զM$ynkX893#ik>QFĢVV49b3s4MjOu 3>l; 뺮'f 2v_Ww1Gh˲z8OE?ćV01 ,V?.̶ijcB[MƁ{_sL#iyӉr׵h}>Mۉ3jǟ߀eaNP$3qjD!ez"p mT'lSv `INn5՗σ]O@FUU nLxxwwoتv4Bbtbcv:RҸ!te82x} HxPp3η="& IY1O|<})Nԁ3m5wNDD 'ڥDf)83EYHhҢmb<E?7P+35pw{Wն,ID83$afP@drTf؝7C /Dj4===ͧe-b<}Yow\&Uq|:&2P)(wԅںڨ w|2VQ4YoW.I#3<3U[fS-IAƘTL9@trfwxM]VD:UW;5. ꗙu*+2MgBw_zEYcq+! ͐M !$0/<3#ܖ3R!@Ȍ}5.Ӡ fY7 4ibvk,,S{}AE `ꐓ=ڌ&٤dd '"Q}0ܒ<2ALTr1J#"2`eTmr7ce82@"@yA@3! )#LḐhzMHG/[^j<8NC:x輔u]UU@AT@0=R}_$9D#,3aV<ꛪ*434MZ=}]Ww î_ sWH,2O>˱ʼOQթٱC#<؎̼}SMD0 HLs5{L\2!aB,jft:N'Uź։%!2둌-6]C{C3E$"mjQ HG2xqgǝ4 n򟖠80ݏCV/I/???N{OG2%Ĥmvl,:O2u! f`f gnTr ?==KG##Kt49@z8Yxi5nS00g" iwR-.NHQ pNjD˘:kg $$}5[K'ޗKAu]",ʷ"I=Οsx ̴cYi>ZWD6j>ѩ)I J4$ a9=Y}.tFf^nk?Zy߿j3_3DKGi1ԑVcq"AҦ Vu]L8X @ڱ$D4T2g%J"OqwVA$II_YXڸLΗ,9#ޮqkwb욻Eftw83̳rގnd*0gOkBN4ZIR(jJs% %$z$H΁H! $l*[y0GC_n311rRf3@ \^ Fp ]?8IZ."(Ms+S& $ͲЊ Lkɹtە.LAL$}W^ ,} hؕ*}־ $!-#`9h:(}1fngE]"_ MD.VB2HF&YHviym3Aje}\.^.O:pTӐ'CUݽZ0}qNd(Nb=-,܉/e$?_.t~Фg8 7ffusHkۿ5Ma<82.AEٶM|֘5(|} 1[iH -v}f{f@E d.,Uq=x gEQg`E_~7[U7*]v5Jb& &/r"c.$@!D㐵{YҦt<=yy@SD BZeԺ6nA#f"nrG.ETU1efvzZ[<,˲,f_K:OL2pQi favkx*Vjia|Rg'\,w\&&apclPG?BdfӸ^?|_hϞZѵ۽ߖ߮䥵Mzϳٚ$"ԔHӳ…%Gܞ08墻#6裩>0??ike!sqH# `=(pAkeklL΢F9&0MyJ $`"0S$e\dfIM0>G$ xyy>e8dؑvGf꬟F J¯/$U6im[eA6/$~161sIT23}sm[˔aEOMAn]<Ð̜e混7Zaׯ_m%;u҅m{u T8x}O^]GVj߇B Ȅ?;iҍԐ@#y #A"FZ()=ӵ݄9첹<*2!TZkh"6lԎ 1%8q{_Ü<6dڳkE$ɑ xSfޭVʰeMt>/ Vff; b I\ΕHi93v9aonNB/`p۰1h\]!Px")= 1%SZ%gR &'sAyzJCwGFL~[ZlM2sK,[U~@oo0|8bG| w) '6OGf d"޻WdjХlJP$(^T4&dǹuAE3j3'8?*}O ϰd',$>BCU+#ַǭٵ~DtjmC$H8aO'0 1A~ol!fTːNHGf!e>2޵VYADvB7.ؼ$3sWGu[wsˬ̬,Uv]# nL\4Ό"?8Rzg)e4~~ꜙi b,n_^~`br{^zbMyz; .//gvp%v}40 @D`TUQC A)@csW3`hDCJVZ:z$]  $a&arwDt;b(c ND<8[[rF{$`-UbOE?nzHs_%U+p bnf{!Y8w#ݪ-`EzTQ9{[x:]efe֭}HZ2PK=Nkm[Xk4a `]236FӼE(*#Q)\YPЈnj ?iy7$#B1zr"٬:N˲8R5V[7|"[;E瓜kx K_7%geQQ8ol"VʷNơlozKnveV|iRHh<{󳙡Ir#KnL~Ȃ{nYroW'Lt ] IDAT^_ϽZ%~V%U4(EQ6m } ҬHx$4UD oeb/m>K#Ȥ, G9J΍M仇{*} ?o*GHWH Z+6\<3K[xox:ʺuYo_~ 2QdƺSm=ORM5OopSV!Ts\ s Kւn}"b`:=== S=:)\hs߇震tGc(YP|p_CeHߟ擲|P22 GITsЏ`2*p&‘LL=/7M xe}'iJ"5a՗[ ~<iID#~/׀,:MYz BCu{5Wa$`r~PQ4@AR?zT ًI'Kw=<ڒN.39<{sM⨣io|8۸xгNasRJS/ېp8D)==#Ȃ# ߇tgLnۊDOvM+#ʐ#hP^g"l(;mW83.G|c-.D<r_W YU'ՉUӣ˷Aᯪ&zVm/g;Wu˲\eY0/_^~B"K_&4iy!妘DZMUexnP1fQyٵ~__`~6KHwGdͿ؁#UHj8:6 á2(jv!'?hѷ6Db!jTm~ZPghlfiF[@@tF4$ !&{W,8RHn~-|^XXR A;S#"~}zQ~nu0?<_ xBa;ʈJjO*=O60ABNQ~_(qgջݻZk K60A"ͺ{ w#">ڴdz/>'4ڇ>0(v#&(,9/5x'7ة)mJ#!02u>#{Qʻ-H%ݖџ;0͔PՎ!֗పJF<fՃecF G (AkaxǨ7( RhķF#=É)hV[oCA#qT-X:tWOX`4Nv#N[b9a[JR`^wD;<8#(kAH\,gȈYZe#z15Y8K\=bɐf,.üe֘48HH)n=']H=أsl/{nz[kS[Ez'wi$JD̾4 ZV!I4۶+h//]Ug.~_Vh,j;~/|k=S"Vy!Q&+uA=*qzы!lEN8~zGR0~51裎){Jk!50 {5Qxrl-T|LנA +S52BDzg7C2ӊ&&ШeX&##m-v0(v#e3-BFLOwx,v"_~~CJi4XTrR] B|}};|2|<y$<"32۷o^x#"ū"AݖU?yXO­ }!YnAɢ +jS JWd_z^\TAte0f)bJA`dS&A 4b2/n?f^{3XcC Z^i>[Q}] ~`?6p?(6I?V%tC--T;lfQ.c67atH[=ns N=oYt/X?u)q|z@a =<3SÃ{9QC߮cRrlq" E5fJ1-C)3@CB:ID4CAD2MҨzP^zPsWj|VQKg\o㌎(; %l:Ηdψm B%$"#AL4'!d&*@MY1o !Upvơ]{.#j{x;{vkDnciH̼G"wBNO> K4M\=w"ws({:8Ӳ+%!3NN{$ދ]Z|= UH6G6E0ܚ :ڡqĞ?Y}cG??ў\oC):)0fI)JD<<@uA릃ӎ*GO' EV#8q$ !$)k*O"\NBOHd~XnfD -n|B\5Wɑr L*59 aJ8wy";(8'$wPp{IQ9-x %׋2E5j,+$0xn 2[{_n^¦nN=T6C@eH4*%:<3SD&:'UW7@D“Lsdj#޸s7O̤iϏ̃NxTc9~q0C9j/O]0&b mCXݯu!m%3 VR bcme9nl~){%ݻޢ#-j~.)EO?"ҖJBR)%q`)SdpJafhĖNȠJnDy34j]*<ŇIݸN317U-B)}Ktϭg҇HZdRe&% g~flfp`QebvE 2˖y[KA:'R`4uQ23i/ǡC7s  !)y`Ĥ@C<@l҅>m7[?-2nPG]Q^*:PI^8NBVzcs^3`qڷB[-kzR>S#2cΟ ?TgmsfQ@YB- ?mȩ"wIK23%&9 ?O>ce%Y_IkzG>O٢`4N;&p~riftk%GߌnDZ7vծ ܱ =^0/˺rښH?2MAR81OsDXĶ"B*ۋHwcv{4i,)B$|#z4mo X;TXTJr&S:GE8 (GVZ'I|^n[S3׿'\2\w<PLk{xnP-_|S}qz]0G:ĺ|~zb~PS*#u_gc0}bf@zbQ?426Oׯo|tǡ52u}:[4޾SFzq"4$p'\ c?:J7g5{}Ljz<;6hτ<1`|QSk_~%>Ĕp# bgd5 !X6vLl}3'g8Uyy?e鱿6ww&ҞͿ~} :"vA˜y]}]# V._pP%rOݲZdž?^򗟞Αf֫α|x}be>!_bu&6Wn}&leuAvf^2$--r龬N'E{kl/8Ng~.@T-GjpL$J{GD~9(i񴵇{c lu2qxm})ƿ1C9ܗ0x)"G0j{)XD7g_(Ut`ZIhW$s-u=M&5f*TnV|xƛ Lk>߾ՍmrgڲGׯǕ8!5Oc?|F=S=RՏ5"Mϗ'"'eŨ7xl9OlŒ W`:5eꁒOF9nKf(qRdR$}@ aX[I0 $LIRDX J۷o8"F41SI/<=[n $3>9*УUMf.k6)7nL q_b}eEiNw=m"PU(\G7vqrӌDd*,ї͘ HXe?1 kfSM=1̜c`4BQ~B[8S2*ǡm;U XEZeTR-ހZ\tͭ1?~>1Ұ><{,/.œ2O?%\l{`IΧ)< 7{tft9myVU3*2hybBk_|FCdDzuG򨍩wU_#Rf!{RH _z[78V}uVY6oGTE-yrNb`JrN2}!z $D^p $#(%橝fwe΃cΪZk{}m۝G6_RDDX"ER$A?ABZE@Cr 3 [=s~H}ZjY+@2LlHj A)]J4UF[1h=½,$V_~Y^J4Oh#W-Yf*fA|v: jݻ"](3!"l6$S9CNiL# /kֈ xP 0P݇۹HD )yjS[km}eVB#"@HǧOmM֤y|욃;#8!9qH8й+:b(ކ5ۋ'Ol k{rmf>нLv|Sxyo~X#3XҗYxpUCqRUPA0 U"eDBgO4=x]u] TOGwv.C3qEJVݟ=.B@`z^Twwl׌h2LĐvvQ5xSؑ r8#[V2$ptuSi 4(Msp@xɑ.+!P<""i% s >[|]v}&fU"J)wf>ׂHN d[C֫uc <ĿsǾ#*Y4Mʀ-3%8uz811>Xr`p To(?jE7%GT gʙɌ1#mM^ۦsw!TDBs+wdm1my;_^]vfϞ=mF76?`"ҖVz=1u3bBMts|{r٢vQE7Ԙ]͘ Lo?xyhjR> ADGjv,ϝoÊ/\ܽpUM4xm75Z*EDm$`U"sb4C^"]F:LXmB '?h6*)a1QRwrw4'  zКkO՗ hŠј%f9R~KEw˼ _UBێϕܱL|e;ðql(n"ᓢyHV{4:"RLTB|!_Ku3r1!Qb mo/wXVl@iE7WI&"X0!1+Ji%V3E \dLSH0O@Q sq]tsI$4ْsǭ/ }r75CO aVM3;?_!8< P+Bw?Df6lq^x홟F%%>FmOS؜rNIE"10L}jm}ċpՆ cө-W4ber4qPf-3#nff :J" ƈ <>D~G^BTSbJIRV-$Л'lnPP Ub  2cy~K/=(:$"\M.50 R%vL.#@R(gJ RXW!2zzZS[UUfTB@/k6xw)! [xbK s:dpcAwoJϭi"6cKg0pKhNK zJeEm)K `(cpsUq1.NssQ֜%jHSin4nZoZ=攴5u>S݃{E 4峾1u䰪7ڴ$NɶM(b21/iι T"UqG ,jJT$Zg pU.4K .}K^Ԣ5u]WQmŀvRίy&d挐A*tXmWDROX"t9qNmtX˛ef^53Ddٓe3gRJ0@ߧy䵴*IpA֞sZT ᚾ: fRSD@4\>/:!&\v Md{.sK6keF$"~p4]#U*nxju3m$ N?٦@0:7G+ZfWr@ tƭ땻XŮkr6ѐh ch!-zȭLyË-i=Jܻ8Z>v}IHphMZ淯QܙІf{{UE4ZkpWw('LE1T p K V>L;rl`ZyM^H^Gph:% !m,t=Y ,rp3MFyVt*njݣQ%}XD,u647#RXLdmX޽{QJ$A.K>)2:Pr4C(pη>3utk)R0ũ/bVM]mh(iHp#^}}YJi|6M>.»vAC DH)!Sqs 6(p}q^+t,G_`>L\* " nn,iF3^N "<\ȱ؀ 9cL  =!:QpiqI.]y:NS*RHD̂BDIϵگp:  dvH a%TLSy!b Tu6RN77&6bwֹLobX.pp4{ro+` w9qe>woM2OMpFo)Ssp4pG7p6o!Z[X\ևSU[|_Uf;0kxV:h\ ##!}(I,QTD~ҙ<3KD: {hĪʜЁr'۰}2/7CSwwSEQ˾`|64c E`YA/~2S]& M ^B\L"~61z{5::֐N1&qǨa2@Ry`w'0'TI V0h!Ir( "o24`TWv6+RnwCs)pb VˊLxOmo VF=iJ'wpVM_  d@٢⛌Ɉ-u~\**茜0f8Orw[[DUi&h!IZaaRJk3ݫ;"@"G.K13s8f`tvRҐ3VUO~1 F r#0RMVsüXPLсa*~+oMѶikl'h+GE<ӺY?DȀ#ZHҴRǮaˋ}̭w[6b&׸H=";dyܬ5oe  #G( z5ntd""Ĝ9iH} z³>`'D Δwnw8|: M7Uũ^\\ WWZOxZw3R'CLvV-I9hD]Oa>ӪhI̦:4M6̜rTvdޫԓ /f j.4%~#wZкBtXyXxD\qzss<}Ѹ;&䉔"ui`>` $ |$?닿vqguF.Mҋ\ɓ'"ruuݽ|aC` 4罹"M5K_yu==u=11\W>{%rຌVT}2NDt?`9! C42CWqv}9tss<iv:n-MW<׍v.6iUɋ7m&kn_nX2;X(/Y䥠2lRTMvQ:DBf1U^sr4 U )u':9(!⚮EXd:ٓhZio]̯YiSCreS-UjBn7)VHP%q(RsrNXEnklfv2y-O)Loͬj$ո;486@UK=nexnnp23񳹘TJlƛ?Vw^ϣ[GG,BÅCySTΊ*A~>㧉YNӣGOE$dnD1CE2Pb/.B=xIݠ8DyVW|UȽx1s= $ [0 =JNqX\v6bԙV[ E3t++=Ǐ7+ю^p0Ǜ kŲmbf~1@OV*g*`䲽h?gICG hhoIQ6g+QIbVno)/ScF DA6z1K5Y`6O)5KADki$BtwPWSjfZ+ g^a՜9UET]7<s sKV"]E$;QE繖R.몪4jι{RvF8zD,s!͸̬m.HdP["NDI2bH0'uuDnvaozɫώezګS>=z민zzn%NH̜0FA5X]ݖ+{ӃuCfGz f}>"= rGQEc8,pf _aRJUAfQġámZ8Hnw 5Xk6Ck`B9Cmt-qZ "`99ѽ{Yx,,8777: ~l>sϺ;&Ca(ʣq<xCE҆0QJk pj6 s@)QNRYLɕ u,gFV.$(,x)gFTu -j3+%5gRxpњqP]a{@b?4h.dM .u!]F޻'QK'3[WRS6(;:CzKPDZ2MTJ]Hf3AĜ; d`=g׌$~ j>zG(,X)_buFJtUSG@ 64&֮[ȕ{ALQzoj[qt,iX^O+2$~u. ZPb6$gZUii-bOꜶ} C\7LzlA>_}xp;AӣxΘ xx$<6[S:sS(12uܣ3JnƂs;*) sΜs zvma<%2Tnm2V+'9R̜sNjzU&k{wFL,cJi߇VJQj)%B`^o""`2ƍrkAEhJ0TH\v䄟BH07?P nx}k/>;fp9Ė w/;Ǐ?_l_^{jޖӧpO6 zqeT/6 ^a!Wl#nlŬH-! fR6vUVeyí539;"rU殔[rfc[o׌oY:/x6s[Z>hl,hզ.evPOG qpGpDPq>=?NڬD2 sZNqffH ݡ `H7&Kܴ'iKp IDATfEc9цgUun纗/}&Sbf 8Mӄ)%)Le.sxYwikގ)'d fbL.Jͺ0}Ј͵[rRhyqnbY0n¾}x嗈+jV3!0)xR !sN׾G>1=7$<>wꕰ³}Lܸ)ܯݡלt>??=򫰿ޟ<~W^giEA3&ÎyؙFiΉ}?`OXLdƀ=juݻVi'V6Sչ֪O]FZe9ݶm] 9~wm़4UtFoTU"Nt`էvSe@4f^GEι苣oUMYŷ6YXH z%8uKL=j)?=(ގ | h?dzfajw൜mKU,1ִ30`QULk!w Rp8Q(~52*H2o.'^/8cQK)yD29u.7e1sz$43`4!XV4E903݈%N\a\Ghw_l2MVTZ[2Qa4)V[dY,s @p8Cû8 =%.EN2Χ:tOO~6~ݽן}ݧ_xoo۾7sιsab1wTBwwuk_Z< 6j~С i:NwܩNNrB&s 9IՕ xML.ll Z~? ehݧ k\v.,4VCo8ܿ_y?Ǹܯ}{ǰ?-p9Ͽϳ77|W?=O߂2钟&84ֱ˝Ա-/9j>.ݞƣ|ݹonղղԨ<uɫ}GxWy_[ݧm2lpgW] x^tُJ#?yXD 0dv|prqջGr p0*LMf&U瞸rXJrjX}[VKN7:&sC1\?6@Pyg"9< h!:MS=j TpEŨ& tH+<fISJ omF8Q&;fVRI|VBlpUA,q)I'N]Kcp89! s"ЫD.*IƪO7+ TQic~6)+OugC}9,zu>_R2":$D^VS@Gg@HС@a99wl@s`Rl @x܍vY4U|;#gG;oOq_KW?ۿ?|ʟß}槿G~_//?o;]nSݯGGGC٣}4f|ڱ扸"*\Ӹ=3>0(ج:󳦱թ&2LEӱ-ᴳ2)ՅjڰdԲԒcܱu rRjV*U=vƃdg,VR@'y7qӓY _|C0Frv8R74M*qB@yG S<wDѮDf*.ʻ011;#(_7񥥇YuRp5-zFsĠ2FP+:yI@Nw~O?OVz|O~o};kǑ_x/|y}?mD&/ɇۏod}wЃ rBcmRDdj] ]X="njuꄰWpSir/,{c] 8k5Uu`ͩhR"v5Th~ԪE֑]0#8Z%7ZGqv?w_w?ÏW~|}}Lߜovx?_B7?Ǿ͏~ݥ3R__zG>y2>}uO}77ϦioNH HqԅiPS3tsARqg z:4 3aqRI˥*QqP KJ$w˨<#~7 +3֚4MgDN``F wȤ.UMTKoa} IYPk: 4t*ԣ]iH wݹS8b?[6{޻7iKSTTP.$AScݘĊQDbA@ ,~6}-;wvP3gܙw<V[nE~Wmo/uDN HZŶ~L'mnU,Xx[3-Di\m#,vdQ]X"1HX2( "jmen!ɐVc9@REd YAm[HUW DƐE ʒP:s.!DjX( 'Z4JAVmh h&1XchժUf%ZIq?e$Q.̴!cl$:Vr]OPSV&x-h٥*6~'V᲍尴ۉ)"7UЦ)`,1e(, B)qN4&DB(Fe meM3!NV-wlAJ7(\un`56V*4)dt@$q04dn%K].h &Jgff1Q^*ITZYkalhz%yR ̳]1#sTZKG(89Bz dy<-4Y"bBHkQki +92شʒd-Vb GsDKm@(Uii?nq2d>5jp[ XtuB/c[wVG7,r*xbMd穠D;sO类)F2U|~/_[v,onсʀ?qdVSDmaoٸi+y?l8?>9+FQAgvYpe1& I %2z1e)6҉hm ̑ HbP[" hcb1`f99\2Nxj 5.jژUH d68BlkC0_iJcЂD9\tN?v)6Y:#J$293$)b@3JM#R~ZpoHEK0Y'AVZmRZbE;1ԶSҩTFȅ`I.fm8c,])(l[UԱf8JODOj.dUF*I8Qj͕#9Z tAXHalLꬌZDX%bDYkҡ: 7Fg2ݨLGGDF0 kq]CL*el&8Ơ2d4q M4CD Ab1CD,yLE~9iBJim<`=S:$1I\͓gZ(q$M,9Ä0s 6pZFh,j`i|U o7-F#m WJ?b)2}.!fW;{df$~lq65W޳ilVݲ|>yW+r_5 s~!/ާO]x)Ww=\o'7L:w':p fbĬݑ$_77ձDb⸢cr " 2 B2hQi_q&PP|J1a…p3L*LHKd ɵaDB49 tDLqɭPLkm 1NtX3k q3ƀa$yJ !RE&c"V&&IT92U)<YPsnmiMmR &,ZZ%~r_|Ɋ(PG\(v B{FD1ݏֺ#ngϽSr&g_;Q0jGoOCxԳ޸\:%e,2H _owBmJϣ%F'Fk!BDd21XL @z IB_:R: fZQrdiS e`AQbMc#R^\C# ~cؤ7k\Wo,ei&c`e"ǷAșBZJ3!1h2Ԓ@!"$L$Ib0Wc%Жt N%ƂZQK, @|;cQ-L!M 5!&q47>C5jva[Oq—o\wlM?\w/8Sj|?[=dbq53^uq|֮Ź邛uCV,Gڭ|X|ҵOJ{|Q'P8‘Bo) 'e&2a1$6BctMwᩚFG*QJCt6]RH`3ɐ6A1* XB-̔!()d|yltDQHfiq-p8疣u@(9s$,].G*IIl) JK,@ ,1(-0ΘPFSssh-N!"ÄЦSv ن9 @CVK kKw6u"f :Fp !Вs+.Xg&C}쏘  ߺ?&iԪlų&҇L-#$jn@r$jND bc:ӽO]t Zub&BⰪ"te!IM,DuczZf4l`1NʙL&ITOOIzIcΗ j40L;2:㸻ؓ$IhCF{M6N|!rzj\hՊiιhJZ kQ Ѫ0I"n.3xZE8d1i*c*וK?iz̷a3W5=ß萚?ޱƾw<\g8my<أ/Tqr¡a-ӿljw 0j5 LrbS,pUu'd8pNdR@GC rinnnj-+F?Q=>B8VZ#+ Ge2 A6 (8Ԋ=‘s R%eQ.(SCXZmJ{eP0Da´upT 4b`'`nKEQZd[m_b<\ #W##1[>BQU]ǡQ[q"眀kTuq.+/FVwZXzu82:ZYR`KVCEAqnn IDAT"I BT-@-ʓ蓁5劗 Gh5CJ$Sn\`%gAINՊHk_: $]@N]W4BDQ4%=2,ѱb3wLҏ*ՆHX+?V.c>%CY -" 1$}m4GːM|%We 'mҠTya,%[̂Di9(X[k]W0fw]7%$IKbD482ly'6Nhs ə'$rf YXL @,a*-)3!<78Y8p\OÙ ta9GF8D[H[02i<0d}Ƞ+3j,[2pf 3/v~|ms˟TZ|G/=ͯOl>cuoW0f[NNoϲЅ~~&)rrʠad997_fqbpF~\!Zc8qQ-@H@qbGb _b 鰂]&lB\3 ; !Kd2Ip=:B[%,,r]uTQ&5ʺA㲡9գF{Eg<7"r |Xr!1mq012MuIVJ"IK y>o!ьKe{, B!ER+G*²T`HJnnjeUI aE1ɬ5"dYrf# Ld0ih6C}Cf?S Å!w_y7_ ʿ`n\u𢑞5AxTR]lBLÙdN!Ca5B'] ள138\b#J^85Z7c Hΐ&Ĉj97&:l9֚#3Y`"n:1.T%d+bh#/czh8ND#4/=Q0!ph4R#hg:p9 dhϴ! j$Șg:dR$I\Df IN&  B!V@)"$ %Bʓ \./AKs9KtB I9㈘: 5!2`M0'k1RJ'@K!۾kM1fCx,A4KEno?0"K@[F\iOzӈKٮ> ʨ0 h)b5Lvvt8IK s\[" @1@MA ːl8\LB$IZp)D*1J5UG0u\KGfkRg~D$ 'WPH!h4**S'\QDg# !,U)1 JS5'5c9z.0OM-L-W< @M@Ƥ>HL1I6$4Rٜ8tP>Ks\ Ff2BZ3YOLﺹ 752zc$  4$2BJ풯h - sfjrףy}}}͛7¦''Rw^_VZ c'~ӳS+6~޹CGbDvΊilqD'BK%%kW{Tt={d۷SM%aC!Ǒ#\X3 d -dR EƀhmZ)@$"i>5[.4gi46FGCD^aq.gL0 $DVPٜpA |h2.,H4zH_RU$ # mH ;҆>'$q̀9 %Jw{՚,8sKVYm-c *M@t!iOJ Lqe>$D,'ƂE& Z#9GF#!0F` r9V'F1`)\G2|6S-RGʙBFYme5V*t!S($ Plu!vcEV1&2~P?1_*,,*=wu[0#glaAt1'KgB`brµb=5?̂*6^6܇BF =~S_;ҋ#r#I<ϱDt.!aqyĬ'G׬-8LbQhkr2FZSge㤆Zrl8jɌÑ1`#Z *D 8-5` YhC]!OqЊ(lF#}x7wc'+K^믿~Ūh(~Y)1j3@`}#C2úgB6D3*iOt /9Po4eW~?P(4"eBhu* b)J)Z&5tȹD. ID WzH+5>˰ i'2?c So0-z6_z$km+1:a;UaJ;i.%F#{kG+|f يJA0ݬJs\Z[iJ]RYOHkm&$lg*G6qz5s;RnsBܰ8 8nZ8Ib2"E'3\G`1 9^@`YUӳ>-1׳LflC->8[ÍK@QЖt)ˀqH LÐDjQlKrזDA6i6"tDa[P^  ,TW4)#It-g3Y4HDZD'=+/|V].~˻E_|dg nbwXe%2mkEƁYVAp{ :uși#c0&gR#wy./:7fH>+ 8IZ=׭$՜P8G\wW^Poٙc&I )MT:JhyYPX@!IJD*,Ffd|8#4)&Xt+6XD8HGJBHk 5*5j@U.#B[rQ@mG] 'i[[WZ g^>}7SãOaY?Nva&~czc_k^J5J,ɱϊ$aKUucVc'`ĺѳYʹEN/瀒 ɸ`\` l)Ew,M':1mgZBMM_7*;J.F(ˢ;Ǽ'ScTґūʰڴ+24QۿϙٞLK\*ᴡؗ+ۣ2L>2\O <9[8ulnFʼn]b&ܢ53O_rGkԝ3 9H"! Kg3CuLue! kf] \)ǵ8' L_oO.xKkbkW{@)>zfm4zf{{-{]#[{  pNWЯ\+Cၫ^ҩ!'Mq/q}fs]k􊑵~+d)ENh2^V59tL2oW>5śrN=^[,Ƌ3.EeБCټi[|հn>5+{n]87ӥW(ȉMT::]r,d7i;3n'NNMᙹQ[̬wod!ӕai+~qxUԳtO#{&/׬2]w=Rk_X29ګ^qǏ _~}d峻ǧ~}C;w߮!}?맿o~1?b.蜻Mϑ9Ծb9۷;;>3N_a:G{|E?sA@Jy816^L(8H\,p.r !2d z"_ cw!5 z2ξ'l/^K:=x^6TՙɣGrݓ~$] hT9yV.ߵ+kufa>AWOw O3]i=7cщC7>uBXe v;q4v4kԊqcV8x9~fq9k{v\љ\.7Q.WTU{](xOV8\" L>kSoif+C?ַjԘ+cS?y0 .Wɩ|&- H )Pcm935*QkzwUϷji~Ͻlڲ⢛>zj߾f_Lܖ /_;1}gPK;*k睴_'6]zAЁmQy{~[ڠm?}׿~_\xw䓗^t;n-;*/}_;-lt}'xr}Z6tڑGw{_wy ˊ+XWiE[?y:i܂챃G?1!R{xt <7`YitBbI㇟5oo3md^P56 JLK,4oLLҩ]wnF>ګ=퉰O.OEO+ٕ(ʅj<&LP4J D7o;E,Yr֍[GȾ^Qggz;ngy"S<8Noo# 3JŰZ[Y7kg,?vߌ\4}޺ͽ }Sz6'O?6&[hl67WXyt/,ߵʗ<}o t3ˏn1G&2Wn/_. SɁ}}' `WO~;o>햳~[>k2w=׽_G!/+)ͻ岹=Wӳ:(շ9xVz/k7=9ʴ԰Ìʵ8=.;]q7ӳ$<~՚ogN%/|߸m˦ýO~EފٛW# Ef\OJml~r/_uF+Iצ9㋩{̊u[];dx 3{r⻃[?ɡ'p?}~ۮ+]Z/UὟw~?~xʛ[&݁ÿY{󫋓A!L?z?=?_k:ؗ+of$._ ˍGzf2O[yFi21~=.\Qm|*ud\t;scE~\\fPWJ{]=ݯxf]X|tV[V<0b8_Z'珝{c]vXlve{?COҋax0:v`V UQ^ɥWlU_usՑlOXwD1+rmjEY]oB9gu؉_OKQDyV˻Nڗ_s5,Oܸq 76t ~Cv&]vw<w{;}ᣟ>'vYK7>7~h׮] Znm|m_W돟|'{C:tN>?W#/\7Tc7~1{r]g oy5߿雇NM ;߾ 癙W+?I߹{qE]{+GK_Sb9>eo~g{VT?S+nx[C}_Eq.WV-x3CS Oעb\8U.|r~Mw85u{^W;¤K; 2'N 5;=fƢ"?vg#Uq{lO=lanG;t{#*~ *q:JZ|Gj.4`{9Y/'z^׍1~mo=?3G'b;gmOD-'Nϝ5iml)uZӆڶ8svwF ',{;M06>e'ك'°ṗ]uڲ>O'dzK=6e1\>ln6 EQ/W^v^V)"D@BIB*l֙s8'dʩy?}7yb=!n {_iįJk~\$ /]cLLOsw<}+xZ/n}?<%?ӹ<Лt[߼֏fg_x{w,[q`Cϳ!l؛x`a`٧БG;zcuDTnN!!8er08<C!;*l}ٗ筻x=ٕ.剋؊%҃_#?x[p㕷tSxe7}nzn,|Wm^ɏggymc>fvԏ\3#OسzzEO7tS%Q~+*^PvqUWm?u,O? o~Ӷ"J[0N38ثDP<~ӝB_Ec^id?w+zS8= Cl6pǗ9{)?~'vqu$gԀ\TP[gMnW)G1Hu3T$> Y?0H #?=@I~E]I+D : >xtYl]Gl=ҙy/OVn?窽=R2"߫߼1SNd/^lپUew>jҡd}~)b-i.+lG3WX]]Ẹw1Ro\z6_z`ǝ^w 'X<?13-;?ޔj=6 f.ZŬTm޷C>840LO=7:lܕo?1{vwR|rY:yܒ͗[/^@c}>[;C~꣟P$6ݟwFw ૷ ;{ͪϾs= }U/j_G#C};qx嗿1JY}yÕfMA~sU2}}o~;_Oβ}av Nh~vb&;a-e>33OELGS{O]=| ZF[!o$7Yf]^qﱑJ^Խ.`kps']+}OGOyG벨]'-M+jhnD=Vw+ş*'vn?uzypVuuOwι綯xu-`땗!L7nŪ[Ϛݱ Y9 6WO]"&Į=r)tu)aʞߩg_:#PmƧZ1dS}wk3]h)@OoɸΛK.B_sرjhJ&ΫwdsM?A|ΌjcSE%mֆ7tԏ&| 4MB=|h'{w%@4;/}1)+?=ןڎT)6IN{o<FwirTS_:0>{v%礤1H\ee}z׿n gs`E5c璕|a㕴`ߛ|zqk֥E=;e _{kqw" 75=xN,jm:681:z]c]-Tw4 DpL9kSAa&7?0r|p}{>r+=eڙxᴳ;0=;z3=θ򰭇_ѱb%$.< !$`ci!; 4YOj- XxyhXd~EU#-q-^8vQW}}?|jO?kֵ}̉/rJف?vk+\vI)ۥLe^mt NN.}'S6:Z??cޱ@$gMK~Pӄ{NuHuqS @\Iى7}^J A0S$sSm/wSzosۇn7#^a/g"S]:lI8w͟P#6:2w]|8(S X!Y)RʮfkeW8oh^ڲnhLBhT _mKS Ϟ)zsHP$N7ֺdϸfy`Ekhh_Q+{NAzMeT]WbO,zjt=Ҳ kwl{}Oԕa|`œܷ͗*igBgy**[tg!#D+M4bҺ~e5| Re/dnd'߰c)>=N/*Cܩ׫<)i3:jIe}ܣ푴sd42c\Qh=ϙe74www듇E^ޝhgD7,߽o>wS#˃ZB;68$BGws3K_? Ms:Y#;ڇpe*c7kujxȡCθ\u^pK~|z}S.pH-$/^>+ m*ݿ\{/ft]_}Xے:jxCgkiuMͥJ_4TgLg݅wR.Y?ׯM?=}۞[XQw=2v /f% vs92mC-enIM53WY(&vD;[@X7ն Y :pp5`x`W=o޴Q!M6]u0V.]tL XW}٣yD<s(hD >ąSU1IIT1+敡eͤ`hi^#:T. B]9}Uo.o{5c}YGߺ?bֻ山8`Ngo+(t{i:1I]اWzuYL\o7Ypщ˻8qA dPx()MNNf,1;1NJ?#flMsh`<)zRDc% àKbN]؞MiJ4SӤXYLOs/$P-$/~ED+Ta;?ڱz^=2w>ϳ#o|=̛=]C|tؑ鯌M%]qH#]k{SL2?#ekv4X W _q7q|/<)ЉC+}~NoSz寠܉%qXM5_&>m >z[mٰ䂏\_edV3ZCVΗ{:{&ե^Nʋ{w=?z?w/‰7_[ ɽ{ky|ohQ/vhCD5"Phs]8})k7Ç1!+_o_Ԫo}4!tB|3'h8Qr~ϻVn=- VZվvuyQGCX1ϧD-˒$)B+Vя.VuMu:GFb$F~!I Sy(,* -o0eQ\&C$I$p9FZOf2>@F_G;(n{/Z۾7{xŪƌ+>l8ѱCĮ~ R%VcUPmaK-CՈs?m^ 9Zp1o=tr4{چS,I TYx-7WpR*{wKV[c3P \}7tcswvw~Ϫwo/}.+"{?=roI[G/},U_@Iz!>B{66Żջ쉧w`s8skf?c5ùEk Xݝ2gyUOm0Jٽ 郳GW.wYYv\r˛.->| ^dxFi#@=~3z}n6ojwS@XCOO}tZ[{+b: IDATXz@ \M70@у_+vZ$C宎>?;bhp5_pʪj*6NRUu D=뛾&!Ep>xђnpc?=G#/ٰc ]׍Ut HFͷ_UHTtMLc c-cDi""E/94tMb1Ɓ1&4 p<cLpQ9߂qk3Ȧꛢ5Θ)%!0j_"pFg֤ڹc @Ņ H$N}Pnc@B 0oa ZPT+-alATCdB0S)t-H%Aܱ܄a_>~̚ű`,P:'yI[([ Xa$D[z=? uti]HC"CngU;P\qլ[]fi0Tsz ̴6;gnMfRzH\4FO}֏W{Elh`71vs/=; ׭OrQ8W9vL fփYZ+GP?'k/~] ZsK㻳0sҭI#P=_}KVuTtXx+?/NԬ?zb5c&'ޑo{޹$;:9Xv*=}&q^ٶ^+1~g?߼lo[:c-rH5tյnuu$Kvpm"?Q"K?zc߳P nB<ԳHے\=d{/fj"鱟^h288T2"Ws鏷vRڳ6o/[M]3j `-Hn޺|Rp! K/ T*I6C~"U49!8-Vgr Lg !L溋/_tֵ8XI-.Y{: w:d;LeӱjzhSTSI$.508_4j9iXRv̺V]5TBeRÚ@ D#x@c.c <,YNs0`؀(C8@P˶k%P5H"kD cP2A:Y(vwuuCj %Μ䞻i]o핖̩NVF=`&0sR~s<Be!)cEX ss͜s*tsz\p&8cpИl IKڜ6`Le"?x>@RT  ~ &~\whO'>|u$lv$7]j=K E/D]w'$@?&hKv,y-۰v݋멇e3'&*u;$jSKrWz;^=iISS7SV*j)}__뮿~dxzQĢ[/wM#d-g_{/Z &Wu4eZn:=Nlsמ=ÃX┕k:[.*9(;֭Nt' BAPр31sRS}^C)hĈA9'Hnrƪm.F$P  :cER1/Ic(ltPt2y ~/~h[t.`oSm`vkHaj\1 -LϔIޔTեdj5UFW_g3Lggg<KCǙ4g>[7OFxzz022Ӌ#!TNL_s5oZqqÆg})Rw+Bu6ģMOL6%ScjeQ#X0[/Ud2Qj nrDnv=xP8[]*m"늪Hr͉X:waNߟnjWk`jR$ʴUE"5D-_۵=_k݆ӷ1ȈtC *N%^tK%DNEcqx2M;ݵk0Wk &H1Q/WA(®i*ⱐ䧧h@+b,Ƙ$Ie:BRu<2Չ,4xb  GtUTfA rU <sI*tP5/%QJYƘ JEÜY4e0 Aۭ;N yٳۍXV)&ǐs<zDU2Բ,p+PBQ83f%M 3zu1s5Mc567d47̬Y4U3tQf T qkŲD'$YHL`#PȲDT"ĚLYU" \F!*ZRgܴ!2& .!QKPBH{0>lI@zuv@!dc~` @H|E%yk920Ʋ,gT|Rr+ժuZl4iZZLԳhQ T $A!E=sAJX p[@$hWhwGgS4Sx<9;{wSGR1礚!QDc0; ,[хs1A̫՘%" UIf[ZP5]Q'aZ"0pa[sJ}"I !JrF FAC'0(U☄ͱJN j/85 ʹ*t"H2fKlIDk04uq&&<_)Y*Vik…(֫XU`m^1`|A==9GAVe&(BHBD&iLEbP(J!D. R9Oי*<DžԤͩ +Pcŀ`BP<)X 2f<)rFU@e/ U ߶"4$CmOX$aUY2|>oe52reUqN$t,KiF)g N4C`@`Y"qF9g4"iRX,芒ũey`﫯w0c:깦my/x}lϵ=WT/- kN! \1{DB $ylľs OBBso%†c4:`lN33 .Д"_l~[sA෺Nybs \(AJLtNeEXP" *|\"+SR7>yʵ_Z2[ TXuTI h,ѢVLuutb}fD+v=T3ԛJR7tD[Iի| @*ޖNGi!DuQYҔfvLD¡xb(jR 2*.|c[ihamҲ!ٖUO)ў>x"5۵B̤cXPP.4K@Wtrv:_AQ LJ`0]?1fm /0 (lV̈́bj %2X2DZj)gqEcMj,F  XSf$1(LS a DcKqJLJ9oC`P,l˚gMSP4eyc`Ihə*G5E^)H-)'HiI:PPlNI-&!Y X-ɀp=T+ɦTIؔ:rԨ`(gLx#Te*c{ K#IVbj@*sҮɡCms$ @r*M[2"+A'N qYHdEЃu}AA1'BX1ƐqFxR EBQx"ˈ` B@Pϩsw`b*ړ Rvѳb;-"qԜ:6YDB3SG!¥qK@W8'm!FP0^8хTƼM>F !HaE}w$8 ιOC@np1_sջVφB= 紓,$_(nUn$az-hN+pDKM(0ϑ|.%ܦC6-kUW@RwE22 6ysdz'BJ&aBf@VHp<+=u\WVdns hz( tcԫf{kG0?nQJli+ȥnThi$3ᑡ!Y:4TxQ T/vh-֫f͞e CBQ' ,4a6?#c7rݜ)DS Ѱ؀\XJua Ԕl`4l>7:4nӦz]b m ^ v hEDZ,Ge=L@"Z) B.WUd9%Pd7#=ZD^TjaE,W4ιy`OpQ$8j+f-hL'l֝YJTUs!%6#9,0RThuN:$uMTwGOxkUł(`̺Rqm1ײZ6[fM!2 -2 Zա^Eӵr" RIz$: hJT.;D@_ R.t(YnQauױ3`PW ` 'f(%[.ۜq uH& H: i[jXJU)sQ. b` VwЄjP4K^5Iˀa(0r!@ aӵ,ɚeY#Jq_c\PЕBN˖&ӳR"dS^-Ǡmϵ)HQBD,qU"D03压 +I Tp/BAD]ȴ׻8 m;Pݴ[?! k߅c?p#?n,[83yk Zx&yߡ `_9e >@ `-/`Ew:Rvla&Hp6 s9e[D$Ep8.((ʀ A0FBF]J%E  &$"a(1Bh2U  ȏk&c, aL$IN#$0$`$I]I((7=!<0M au]y.a9\ҷض#DA GH$!LQ%$KDB#s&8 C_FPmϥ#XRdUU458~bslq'IO%L GUu, 1J9)V$F!d 7@cT0 }WX9ٮӸL+ 8XyB.8O G=.+XLM&$G!c9D² c*AęC@9Lp8d AW$P8!  V xs㷐FZ !PȊ@"uƘ%o3DyDBZpB`Ro4Ny+t y % "ql 4 0 0]!'D.sv)>_ݱ%Oل!y۳a@¿2?<.9Cm qس `\s9o|Mkm$Ȉ)F"\։͡ƥjFCc:k T *֚)邈>Ұժ>ʑܱ8Vٰ;:+=5g77&1enG+5›<1D !'D$Dtp3W $f@ӥ4i339o6"2r_J ,͉ǥeXSuf9DFV[+j׊fn=!s< sc-\B@l}EZmɏ-@1Q`Aݚ1"33:JUݚ=yDU 8U2\J:8'D4DWfjƧX膎@՞1Eĺ̌ȼwT0r!V;)"V5=GW.;s^@Dǰ `'ӊc!B7 ODCoޝgv͝1aT59k@4D0Wύoooφduk.Z2ڎcP炫w0TZmb1pZQ YCYMWDSE'ɠ圐;6bUsqz!gVinDĔR?7_ y͋;1(Xp PzhvcZssyZ+U9pZk])3Cs$2!28Z3:3wC !c#B9118!ac6e!7D"co6&|q,XJQ&`+5HSJVYfg) Ն).p1"b! fh`.StH).+#VBwC0Po.J/B=D"1H`f MZIq7k/DV1-U !6tq x_S?g YG85/S?7tکg{i_Wuw t{{Ƞguқُ7y+HF0Aw7{!3癈έsKqQ7SEt8&OL+L&ZMצ:[ *}3>ԊVL;BS(g!"@{:c9rJ @௽֚!4ov/yןW[͔bCF3j4jυGLW{њR"" 3! Hkj(愄̎N}""Q ~_>Z[UZZUU}~ch&-4W&7'c_sRT |pA"zǽyr6w68 /CH <8!m;8PJnǐП r?B㞃t?%6>W?tjǒ bN )=arX7kM[S`!B1DdUp:9g/_HLhyNZ3Wpq434G G (2ǀ r3UPu3kjE4k Qq 1q$"cUYZUm H2;z&ZCP"!۪ڄ{?R@lT;}UZS]^qb *zݿmzr~6\7D=c9y3g{v{΂DqPU{yS)hTCO> r)qdJ1#F5Er" ` Ӏ:GR ) DV]V ^RZԝc׫mmZYnPdA,%#b=G+D_f;^\\4qzZKwo8&D0T`Rʫ@;8+ qzif 2:͛a 1&m^fjMKkwww[⭵&"䈙aXJ**=]"'OVk]ʴ,31Ǹx,ua6%U)R]\)(ss774pDs=;ljR4M4U)U2ZNjTYio 9Q )X5Ml50_fCVcLIK)XRu.U8Hk- dNATE!2971@o9C&- ]Dyz]n91~<̋Aa jۯ65i1tt|?gFpG; UQE&4"AUE q1nqiӧO>{t+_{KҲz?מnrvǜs&("8Ր" !ƃ!t"kQYe/+ߓCefޗq a_km/]a!2.BX1N ꗻ͏q,W!]q=)nBCږ4xwiD'ÔRuۙjbn&Y|}[':)&pø,K?aqYir }v `#-h\KQS 1LRZ)#0I֛i !Wi5TӪL֝u/S`B)r1p3 ac #ƀLcS@篧+}ϫF M4Rv۟Qs L~'c/sF1l/7#0-sw!xu0 1rXfR ƝM!qM`;?:|MWDu1bFgL_|_7"GW7W/_{OԨ*UԌHkkRJb0SĿd6(ÀKk;#"ت-EXd8p\l}޿{q(ǔCJ:5zK !j&{9.h5ϳV+:7SNcEZBp]fػff`RFje/Y!U`0m{Bw&L)n 9{:ZO:M4WCa#etOٌg򜮞3FDe4n`PC{&ӸLZ9W/[k0:Kmj)eBg%Rqm~xy䁫AS"U^.77W/6!L8vn׳-м))[@U!dcaH=8DZCocVa];( YH="P7\G"Z3@&h. M7a8MjJ@5*Jb1%w31WA1"̥ZLkC>[Mez^a)1s))ZZ"bC2%jPB L):[Q`{quϕ (ǀc^e9騎6*5-Eii!ԩZ0@Q%ǘ0*Kf\ 0e nE04}aTUPw*n&5gHl?x_vnUD^'ǯ:9Pq8CD2̏V}(֫=X9E ,QE_ VgSd2&T0 9pX`vs~tV𪮿)<E1'e1X'ަSC!w=G;ь;h;w LC2*R !Pē8UZSNteY< WGO:\u@>)հCZ)规'%Ϸɚ޴a8Sc,;81<ĈDd&1Ɛ3~%3jk!p1X(R]8p`CpCt!ݭ^MU`>'Z>Zە4fZ9r Bd<1l,F9svlrƘB3Κ Y/N6Sy8#jʄx-2Q 7 @JH{/NBd_6?ԓ z)ȝ X #2 4_ը#xRjn 1F@b.GIn+P)9;p}}93"#w¿j] 8;dSu=[ƈPi8"9;٘hbero7sW1 c.KU(Ɛf63js0Lȫi5 Q~l>!$Y1Δ8(0bB  t9k}Yb'VFr-gVU3d$$~Oq h̝3u@fG9Q8 Ǿ1SJn_03ѶWdNH 2T0i9 >P(C#Kja*eYTw?|yCdNSOl6bG.6'- W)߿/f &_ Vz8>fݕ `dGP3pS`8x!&e>p׽DU؟M8oc4tGvι{/LýVΙ38sf3skМ#8 :1B/N<*M(P̢~?%@P3X= wH/DM K bΑD`\!qo}"hߝ;ffAdDW5tcts{:f4pޮm.n1*C=#F$$2bpr樈nZUiUu~``H}ۭ ENe.M?o2"{c f tP0`]rTd 9}Ǵyrه\~O(\W3yg̖&A9šӻ{iUT RJvvp1kqiAU{1Ra@8݌( #3 6ip`硩cKwkc$"ur#y;g$NFG~8MY!Q_:ݱJj0r蛍ю*X UI63s:^^&ÉoHttOTW LFR)J͍~ ̴Qۙ~zukbv`cLJ)10t5EwA3`&MJ5N\[uD3kLxDLn j8]^`>AZO98 ̌nc)C5Ek-} a b>]NH-RL`'roC2nUZM1 b0z V,jX] .U]\;u\IWy !J@9f \U1Va'aݼDM!^H!ŗz3}c$ d\IG^=}9̠ΔR6-mJ!\zqݢB|8% IDATtw#h4it3{fw0GJhIzmC)%Ǹr$a!q19K 5v|<[;mAݘaGxN@Ĵ5˒9^~̝_%sRwz#8W>((:!=>8) 4;8-c}6Mሜ+" S2S-h> 33[֓ BDz`~nǐǖ͉fH!bn9:)9*xKCURdk "~=|YVn1֪R!#2"4rFUf& aCjʀ C!Z07afjRM5m}49Ur/s"ꙭGACtL@ >Gkģ#3Ndak;Gk mVӁY-NĉP{fڹ h@D70f7tZ"RQ v5uD @Dl@Mmԣ{hf &Ë9`Kxmyf]RMt2SO@{S*]nXsWGjWɤN_-3\l>׫m/w~r/qan*ve7ìsq$yn}Ti?@M~s8k?s~O_|iw\yW٥2hHÿz^8jq&ׇ&7M&n(e c"GPv&IDUSs'@w:#̈DȈ:-nQ&Ҭ6Uu{u4@ԥTT9 k|64B YΩ_TѦ D[j) ).FD(% 'Dᘍ;vsuU58Ɣb?ې`LʬcOG?+u?RQKϟs8w?!61>0j;vwvqzg7+N+ pZМ='|cZżM@Tg/Hq3l>ϔ|g};CM[Hiu9pCe2!/_tw}b̳yJq\N4~m!sr}=$0^] -ѳ7~wt3C9`EYwuvETjw1l^aO>={zOKV-dj&x`{s//o/(Eno/|(ln޸a޿틋͘y)HɉPet$̵Zo[o9"KDncC!mRk7jq1{?o>޼VO6"6CڣLA U C6O9W[>kz;\O;_z>j* :Coڬ4yo`ƧOǧy\,均o? f )|p?K _+`zjq6eh"tB 4e)a*= bh14Z(]z2j"Q>бGW(z_C_}8wPͬr1vn )w}2;q D0%)  !Mxv/^2?[m6cқ_aɳƏ76Zlr $It. D&f_Bi}`_e#]Dy"2/Cb\1T;W0o鲼xoY08cb \^0a5n4eu\7_{?|,7iجZ+"V.vIHo`1*TR߸=\|2Ǐԟ~țo}X`돮œOa\CsSe9~piB3 @)^h@ 8<ϩ.`~OHIgF{\nйH?Gͻ.viMjmpb0̙p!8#e5um$UJI1 H19bepl yH̬bPӼji18p?-6)iߋw?߆j/k񍧟ꢛ"@m>1@ok."ӹR|WWNv>; B\#|J"]Oxԟ{kP'ϞbH̖JěENCoۏi7/Cd,mg٬'mzܛHm+_ѣGړ^$u;pyڬ<unj^O8bM18O֦) VEU!$0ʵG8Ppv14&;\l$9<̼ݗgJ;>ڹd'}T''i徇}}gG})X>M{]@Ӣvտ50s/m>8WSϟK$ "b2U''v5 $9`X 0C"jC5#Qs9":1M&"n9{D*Vu0R&@1lhFW799՘cD< Ӯ0Rvۊ<~&0xHfA['_{4U>C Auf&*ˇx</?7.te^1C^^l6ĺsh +O?~q|dpUuQ"uIUC_=iJaaac;R\ i !G!~VUR\!|A Őӟ~G?W~RӔÈLCf'?7?s.OXH@1k@߿(.`Z|gV}՛/EX)r1am֪w߄~6$Z)ͭϾwe>tw/8GfI\\hgfXR)x\_ %ao}G{/ePU0_ Oҕc~Wy'j|#ץE$2_D"UQۼTǥNռ58$ 1 Њ.M"iUk-/G)3h@dcṟ@8 ѝk߮B'3퇙3[i)"BsxvD^Y\vT%~g=ˏz3pws{v81ѫ#G͚ɡ}\h- V!m/&ey&8XGmfcƭ5P%̀El\33g6\km1~gCr,n֎ˬ$׊L$ϗ˫(<}:>ƛܟ׿ϼ6HA.a<lR,DͯėT/87{ZyZaG|hP8nW!Vן^og'[朇gV:5PoM!-ѿ2o|[V,|y@"tTڼ ._ma!0/j@Ronjo: wVZ(1r 1@^Vr|Ӑ(\kާ[ּg߽Ӑp7j"zmª<ͰT~87?/oKhUw4F8,T)!q.ښ>C~~wwO>O8/PŕeI ֺd ̴-{opbN/` fMDӄ̼^kWrpS«qzo)QJrެW,;[911of\&EQ$(4"X0,C$ٰ<_ ~1 O0l64ͦDR$ͮk-?숸7KQ'NDk.M1-Ow0G;~ͫ׷b8DrH.K"lED 8 B}.V,4UDM=UgEI)h{JT5#*q  FǪs.b{sSE}E]TMZMKɇF>l6>;sf@u{% u1`pH8J r jdaIsSv3(RvGvSST"`YJ)eKڢ:iJ *0waC KUw:Zt &5ݚ`.vxI"PE#rBX+uއ޻kִkȿ9E8]b@MD4 4Ec.QC\`4| nG]ɛo\nawTwČL\JJILсBO֫k7ٲiyWI/ۥkxɊ1vw#`@Hd=?W[7φ圙i޷9TԪ@89=Soc;_,kfRO_lAKd$KX #fxWнO>lN4MviMjJqzdŐsQȔJ }?|DD%~e&,2%N};@%t} !MֻY!MV&)B@Thd4 ECTaLYͱOs1:o^յ`U DS]쨔XEyu|p`-R# A׊f5JS >ZSyUݛv#ðs~]ǨϮ ['|^fEs9eicf7١̧֣JFR MwyRks89BDm۶m[FA"F:t:Yl2)(\JIJ 5 2sdAj3 ׫-ك{'Ͽߕa.I)甡Y>H<3[^\.~[Qs=!"21Ӕs)eўB)1`܂O%2u'm1e22q֔S k6Eft|wS-ճq4!CBnylon.h#XI_c8i|GW8g?mI d0sj7'j|ztִ4Mû(Ue Fy0.^Zrε']J%"N%%QrdB7Rq{g%MOgԟѯlwƂ%.Gm!V [JNOmwqKk)彏=.йI;w^RQ\YEV4eۛOj)DN9Axub+#xyU N7e)k;#.뵥263m6fG&?q~{eJfD#9 7[ nG Bp>k_ʷOf?Փ7?ܥ?7_O~ifK*`⁖S̄D+r- QPb䥹>ِ̛.G%Y,x0#@!*UR.Ov:xT!9 uv Ssݕ˫4^gZ:An*&\["?>M$݆_m7!!4]=X|⣳7NMT|ӧ_>a3st=ap fѶ(ifvBhYwRdϦчЎQXL|e 3ҖnҰmJh.6l|alBLTl4]ɚgW𧯞~~VUzkKov["ϚC.خg65{K.A@l]}x v猄E]Vt:_vhhꘃ5'}Jܽ?]b=~>9G1]AhTC8(}}۞^@ h# n4͟|Cm҅Y@ޮ^ T򳯞2˗7U{d@X$\℥qׯW(m g""=wK9ov'f U?BIdMMք3Yfo~A O|n%4\b>4}XPXn-!6#>'f%X1k>jfPH-eDlNTt?;q@j3oΛfu?ԵCi$2w`εY[9 c!6Bnio#0 `e|pD.I0D!ܩɕ{&MzSfbpf8T7fMV{GiJ)zLi-̼K}ADlAC U)'Y0ΫBktN_'"[%aUA͜Jn[9b5悺adalRD) ƌ;t,㮯d@DÈjNgJts^Suy.DWTtcF4Oi8+95m_ڶitѭM9lI%iq;vN~ӤY0:WE dش 70]Q ,lBE0qOi@t)¾9K:>|PJaz3l܍j| lbv6Hƚ`9SA@D#]l Ւ$%<;M9G丒]#"]lffӸX/VnST#w inj9 bB/ǜ=x0_ø8ñSx=Dmpy|c=[DJTG*'l뉨cy$3UckjC8' Z4$ܫa"~T~q{>k\رOeű̅$eWƜq\F%  QjT{=8ǔsV5"lڰX㘈%eDR  B7}$e1峰|<駟?*?`sG4Y<=ɠy_fngojb ~7g.zZ)m8N&}I4ݦ󱀚'$&#TE}q㒔 ·C\ UZ31TqF9Q7;lpL 6@ dQU ݬ<)nH4Т]!΢b]eǜxNKN !kQD81ٰK:pPTD|X֖g'̩ :!*`S&ȥL41:!DtPK+PRʇ}CDvV`vX=9b{bSB]k3ۇ+X6UUۭ7U$"Qct0 夓R1IІ8uBgam1ؗ i*;F\$i,T4{3BPÂpǥԪX31&."&{tFCҪ6,{=3僒s"H=~Z54!}mm{|qwH EHx9PؠU" ciҵ<!13qD ͼkJƿTWUrRʔZȀal -:vP](z$ ƪ'cw>_?󿞾OŰ꿴k<;;;h՛M7/}lRR?ǓY 9FbȚEsbCo y3nV*Yͮ{G#TcA`FbBf9sP #(;]euN-٬IڐJb (%q.+2V)rP$U4B !:ak *HI%R~hvuytKfɥЏ Y]JWNm J("P1좃LhXL@$O)3:&{+R%erƜ#]cefR|c94aDDRR5降,d@Fp##b5PqH쩪z))[t8T,bb-#00Z7=C[dTJ&T%UQ7:,i @п9HTi/0汭0ǥ"RbeC{ɀ< ǔ:VcU5WGRr}~ID08D$={h~!0QNUctk8 ofYG@(JSl6f)?brԐ9,ʸ|M2R)d `Wo秛ig䳛_?IA|>7}?6c?쑴38TVn}SJ0u"P ϻ>g|޳}Dp9wuvaE0*ĊjFz*Ma>˛Dc& FI*U֬H́JJ8sOcCIj~ 4Td@2ll8'.fݔ)3蛮m؝&R IR\lA @0NT( !'Ca$" [c˚H. :o^/mT2l61 3@ ilV`QUtN%^sd>vq(ų`S#R 3aQr6>"Ed*9I- G"Vr!ó$) LTR)`E`%P@oqN8rfq$$1zvy]#%"Z\JsX*k{o໿ ϟ`f';?]^WϿxŏIo^Mc23`rѳd'C>[E.kni''Ql1sô,fgHh&ZUv M2cюhkrG0#G-;p^["|vM2]l;z >"2MSQ&pƱ aWҦyjTrb{a\3;EjjS@`hJ^@H HVPsMHO @2we"䁋񮉾PA{Ն.CJLYm2jL~dV Pȡ!e [TŢiJ3s;֝7gFf,"iRRB.a}~I@bu! !Dd Q m suUkTk()+}-SSkckUwoZiV$1. m暳XUUMA ѪGo>L0WHAьЉ:f_,!PLBBvՓkɹ5 !ZVK~,$؎;_7[<]@ocYW\ϷisӃ8v1_j[VÇ")".'!͆G&1)Kz''ʢ2䴚j*Y g{06#!4 s]Ҟ@\+SL̵l|;Hs5>ykwX5,9ımՐs0ʭ鷩'쫇жǣ<:he%g 09+n9#"$ [!&cؠ EDEL@ h>!bIs>rZah !4MDx1zpO8z{!nPBTHLFXJ),(&Ӭ@9cܧcX}ףs̎2ݡqq!f&5@Mw &P+ #bwxHv,[0̄"i3]5vIC=a5e"tO_3w|TbM+@hm׷̺E}yADPOBcM0 KUn1)P@DMvdE htDrFU).iS.noo/|ry~~'O۟;_|p''|=89M;n<{1|R䝃R6].㸙-fXŘ;bմ -t8/";F2ѢFEs?0JvôKeH0 U=58њq1BEDR uC`sP`Uyiכ>8;+}NgMƹǨ.WE`6eMSw5\4~t Xq^ 2W Hi>_n"sM2%Miɻ[m.;g[u@L$Әy6~یÐ =xD`4t+ Bu0˗oZ6ʾ{ΪQ1^9h?Hmj|p^ sny n39W{o E"Wu0.6ضMdN O}oJ5Mqa@v#.[`+㽯Dz-q0 S aQ ?5JCYۏHz ;Tw Fomv-Zs:Sq# Lx?ϻ #8tAiG=|c=T՚1Ǵ/(Qn9yUjٖ5@Dajci1yS$8 knf˻]QlުRJEDz3gL1K-:?=Vv8;U=G?{Qm?}ç7dN7/?8=w_o>/tvy.;i]钙'pdRiƷ3by3n4^s Uق kOZMMɉD1C۱dr޹\>\ޅR 8l>c r f (EC9Yt}I??o_oy &œѮ#]|9,H_y1 ԸzdY|S Pmoу@r$hLn)-ɲ ^|Rj|qZZ@pgv>3ޒ>\vZF^ XTv;1}p;݋6ַ0l]7pnfjLЈ1v̼@ӳi unom $0Ϛf8@.D axv*b{{ӹ ,rvjJV4"C%b9w/ ذv6^#!9͌P?=+<}}g*fmoL`c,1uP",J L7r$D@ f:K)pjj two?}?YicvjCxxtîgBF5ɚMճa0AY.˓ "*#~ .ca X=W@;Ҙoq B( x% bI#u]|чN)%r@vg!evZ)eޠTmԜDȰ!:t kc#fvZk|f68mDjcUF"  :bs{}{jx}]uZSV_ƄVԄ 0f s4 ո_:994^<=}{қibf_x޶d)yf9'9zj \rzUhI;2t(FqRJdOMhclfTņꓚ,ot JʃdիKaiqɥRӬs˦cfV@SPcaYө2M~W=@/{Y}8Xu7ݨ=T?;4dSM$އeܷʣfDwΚ}mn]>į8Ќ}<SDrJ#h)xS"m h@@DfѠDwT-PDM  7%Ʀig ,|b~񝳟C 6aHT6@]FsJZ̜o2eM9#l/=**34M !hƒ Vt8x4c3+ !hSN@{_hBfW/ 0dxkd;kf>N)bU٤*ܶٷʵj060H%)*+饐ԲD-q7A̲ޒܥ1Ǖy֨d?#)"c**鄱ʱ&)"j.V8ڎΣ:0XܳܳO3ܗ/<ў@{>ھV]ׄp4wDp,DBΙh'0`2MǔK)b F9G."E0ظV,(]JA!sDhñ=M{WTSUrݿYq>[ Շbۍ(DvU] ^3R4S뫗S- "#0#t{HF4pHHDL :n96|@x|RMc)eYݯ4 mhDH j3v`D ' Esn^H}vHA|vkqӦsFĚ#W^!z )B!Zd>xٷW_nWƓ_/(FYJU EVm;z-FR|g=lpDG98Aے]Zn9Yʘ&7,9,VS@QRLIH+b"VJX?]:"2#05Zr6CEAUAv)*NB(~ 0;j/#w̰O!)Jp`1$Q, {|:uGcw5؃Ü/331":P$iaHwd/3{`4tP@ 2veKAPR zYڧd2.HݝbKS0Z #3)ͣXԁEESZ.DeLwq>]-VJ݃euvkm*9IqڍSh9Zui4EA$SäEPvf9#PܾKEmQќSJ)%&nJ*i3iq`Svaf猙 Ԙy9.gR'` @%)"5+ ꝫ1<֣dFj#FdbfKGҶ|n1-lv y Āf Ljh7=sզw s7ðcPBʞkԂ4! bg ~~l1Od~zcK -n^?G|l7/nn}Λ*Ԣ UK$=i*Sf'-ɄTtح]'gz-؅> KΆ(͋GQ}SJj]4iRObUrwDd0%YU3tDz@>[DѪqV=XYZF($D󨻋5^{ϣuϻBx6RR-utɀ 잡,Ui@@12 oCLALEz2Hy#!++#:A' ;yD3+*EET&GȨ RJ*9IV9͛Y?k۶EV[?MFJ~;/|O>̐)ㄩ!9;pJ)l>!8M,&mv6eJ˞ wyMV-Y8&%~ZcuoŬ93D PI%o2!{_:[R }tI#"%DT]Qί8s?j،bOA eDDeKyՔ [@_h qj_Cg+1lWgo>B4q;F +w UCr_/wv<two߲=߸w6MdWp8yC>@JcUWWxWxcC)]*y;Y1Sq*I3ii$DNE9SN'{aUU%"}-b=i!Qcъ}?eߙ?yM $Z ,P\RԻ"EWҬS=}:@S>_ڕ~+WW>&YXYjWID fS~(ސ헱4gF~222=p~f®cBk-x)AGdUHLj5i`NUIъȩ )%ԹsKJ *жΜ93ڸu7;3Ƭ5kkIkUE"WUTת.<둤Jo|a#몢 \UV+ڶmUVla""v9H8)Էa6Pj)q'$"JzP ciI`V ".'ٺL}n>.7Odk )00' !{I㾩[eYZc3F% 'fǜTsd)#Lg3t UT4-{|eRz{ AM}ۻ}[,wܩGQ ˟`LvpT@ɭ 5{ŵǟp/S>"7Z;]#_fl6in ퟴIίo޺r׷}ӯii5p ,4u3C7X߾ypXE错5 'Vg3FYy}kO>ur18_d1~$BԖ @pʩ(}L)A}ɠ K.HL¹AEQA䴬fFy}NV-&XF3Dܳ:?c <.mO[!Ō@U5Ki<j+>˓ld(d,duܛVTD4$h 2@Y'''Mӈ9B*2K 's&g`pgS$Ke{uιv ۵mh677_r߇/ ,*b8"bu%S&@H̜hHNfǍ×. }$(fRۃ.3 b[_s AeUfvY]ESľo waTzA/1iUlG^~|ڕOa\;7]5nIU"U ]]gs/>v5]OOg^~`d~o&';MXY_;Tqbr09}d}^w\)n'i]]'m7)tenq4͙6re9>3)w;l_gry] Y ܧR Jx8Oc̃;k}Jc;msKHXh1'o/G#3g>+3xy׶PO!Bfgy/=贳xȪ׳+񅰿°;<}˅zQ򾞴 !Da&=!BI\`9S:;>ٳè󰨿(< 3+23M1* U5(@ʰ ZO B6CGʪ_ŋ7v6feO?/X@bSIڙX̺89:>:9Š/d>µu?KԷɶi4%3ժSɯm/'<w>o Y?\ `Ts( ]u$yԦ͏_|G^7Nmkshθ}ѶJ9 or4/| ͥg_^K>Y!@PP9QZUD5AW.L=W3[;)a[h{ p͸:]\RDh8`7YOœv=p[bHI|ae)n9v.H":b!DL "/yR~fgA[+O/\3٪1vr<9ns5Tŵٽz'y޴?s7qy4ފ6 $"PqZ +"T41xM޶~ؗ3nӾ)b] ׊+M[mT־`O&w7|ro Xٶh+c0?̳pB}fLEvLj 8lV9_޷Nh"8}ZUY Ws:O#ޅ^PNN,k,//X "h#Sg^啚6sH  @^'俱~gu]uI[fu8gŒD `!hy0U#QєU@Zg,YPP 7-@SfN1SG̗J̬:ZUׅGtHlXX#8vF6oHR+D$X]u떪ӞC2Ŧ13oh ['Ī(G { 6Ņ˙g>~Ի?x2oK#Sdp8_|5W%7=T,p? mǏړ﹐bTeQlfqjRT ,":cٹ3O?pƇM#R 5k*dK Li{->tf̗ՖͲɳ:,ճյխ覝1Ρ!1['xѡ𒓲=< rL);X D'odm'zQns8bJcҒRG󆋂3[d(̍ۇS'/\}^;kGk1lQ;|F;w) /+>-T9H7=AO*zi<EĦ(`8[VΖ K|6߸$Eԇs[3uaۙ Ȗ/7W#go_;99ښuMd!.1

$sZ䭚Հ6³q"rY!`(/|rH `I 3*aN)G6ơs'w[JXLjn!~.Hr* J!pD!auPxf382yBDxcU;.>>8l?}ޝ~,XCkaA cV!g}YjPOVb߻}/ĭ^x3_ί= ^<>I}"( D"g{ I{loBM#DuhmhUSV`Zc%k]Ry룪tIM!.)}Q?LF߻HxeCA-Β|! K$(lOXm\cBW~8;ѹxls=3u+ \ט,J.81&,Pw]初Ab; Z1qyS{_w)= ,9̓{7擉[_TWk6v;;15fWf'Vμ'ř7Q[R .{$fD*4c[R(۱ %3SX1p䵳!K:"&ze@Ҽ&U]9Wtf&@Vi .xJjA.[Bߺz3 J ’,i o(ly2V" PU֘<T0P0ǔ" *pIh_7e `#h jRS: QԘ쀍kphkkӤZJް#W12aw1'D)D2cxsDKZnշ r IL1FwM ؇˫'m1qKID_x-7RDZaݡak'>8RH IDAT)& ïLݵƺ-r}:eqzL8KWVYdLCozI)B#F [[w-*2lB2Y$ta 1""_X uVBܻu8T(gpϿKq=ț;5wyC_xۯ>v3=p77=yprԻŸ8W֕1 .>f\A*ܪhKh̰TC \yQO Y [U}{W50O;eR: #t 5qBA5z\~չURN̜&1ITp څ)O*_Ҡt" .zd) @1S}I^UU~\IbpHND IFc_!LOrnKPQ/88ol2k<Á'Lf*QQe 4~{d'n =3zcnY8Q hsLCC.sxJ!ؿ=tҕ0EAW a wD)&rSِwI'gO{ǟW{h"`&*%ћj$bb26;.[g>ՠyR!c,۱ ZCHH"mllv`4÷;l $1BU#"f+f͍\ǖ>ȳԱ?Ǜ8<ʇ1&6w}7{nY[w(XUE2 X/K@K}ptD `v]g!cLxwε~_sѻoo7|?zv}k~W|ǟy7*/;W矾k|:*>y/Ǯ,3:pg&( bVߟjS6RмOPꥪ G >ψ(攐~VTd]1S_1Ǥata^}fo`V d .+4BXYbi!I"yC\ >jj:{+H8%$I) 0s:"ͬ5"@dp*flTz[Tŀ6*(̉"0p p"ΙXbo)ؤgeMޓ`M(t1)mxv{3{I}g9pk=5AӃeX0ǧ A`mo<[U5~oslUY90)pt|u}.aj&l2VK"KzŘh)ZSK܃V^sf?>!败%*"25m#eᏭi##Թւr뱲Ԓvڠ޸t6ߐ,Ԭj" sNmQl> -񸿨b=诰מziyH鯲?>==;?ܺ/ʅU+Ms!EBfT[- `]i\ol 90A=~Z?ط,]C0k@]Vú[ܵE$51ED,0;CKWgA3Nbus:gs}{D>W_y… u0 *M9@UFޯڂM}RԺjeX\d{c+gFHZd(MɻA),tA>lJbB6Ȩ>XS*>kɓ+ fmw[/6.MکbXlݞ]`hP`O%s*_rw.z:Ƅw!aEQPn:׮r6t:횾Pq/g~K#/~~<_ޗ?rw]ț~:%uo3^ھwp{]5nk4̌bebPբ(8N"%Hҥ4kH,c-bt'2Ε\i&vq^x="#*qSw1I W(饙7 ʺ? HGu^8W5&U offVr2ƈH S ADZCeY8ˣ4:^ bZ@^\fr?p֣+m+He横8 ƸSibJh.d ګ9iͭ!EhÓ8_*dPXr@7rN A'$D%IܱjQ]js璿ݻ{"AO&M&~Qr"뎏""(Y%h{NBD@$cêh*>gpUB*,Kf;ZW  ,'zʨmmmE]B\ %E$#rg[YþQ.8e{9.sԒWeQUfUjI~٦#]Wˆ * K;7k =NUt>+=ww,Z_"bJCI̹? I`tv66sW^[ 60G4 Ƙοx~pTCg;}՗So[sR G>~Ob?o}-uzʏ+f߻auO~ѻ]xyʵsW}ӷw tp8LLSyS oheiTR-"Z(TQojǵ`.E_tsj7hIࢥ-/jNd^iASw85, bb Xc" Yܲr<1kX hbdŚP5̓=lLQ8%;p,(@EbejȐ(lXf =r ]/?>Wm=u]= :I҅AH QgQL(YDK)ESLMO~SS.O?wQb]6iT#y) >ُYYĠ**.A, hXeI*Q >[:SUi- Iھo1YZJق&]GSbvʼn"vX1xiˀ(Mb:&'1Γs"7.BSd%OC}Y3!>a0 D9/"ٲSɁ5ΐQ }C)-@`YHRR_kORJ9g$EP7(v>+?W4.+G=&2>˴E4Əհ±?.577쳟{ֳ/gK?w?V/Zɧ*7+ڥ=ŦV8G7(•4¡ȋV:ڴ¢<.U|@vuBP2]Ÿ?;"*쥪4̦LyBOJ%= xK FT""DAAH!y2Y;˿1[RI4rbfo)CyI?t5b^2c 4-81(j6@ E@DHD2'se{@7Y f]:^S*8x/\'V&vl:kF)^d~yhFD Z2dڪr]Q4@͐А6Ӄ"}]Ԟ1d mmۆ>sNdmiU7kE0i3FNcJg  M,QYR07"8QhL [h3Yr1l }JQc#N:̍1QXһCS&k˦!rN?gcU-Y #H**] CӵS 'kh }](E!Ogg}EQYh/8mԃ5Kt]hezH XU-Z(#W'{c_5|jtL[;bT |%Uњq3;O||~g?]OO>-Q+* B(sZՌcdL]a%1Dֱ-dJۮp7,M1M߭U)y?Se""ToȫzԲ7Bʲ Ru9L ),$1,U@@kUU$ KJq@":Iu遈d̂Y~wbZ D;n"r1>-|P`hw_x"߸sTsO_[w3}EQTmۏH4!@$X'=/Ō$iGR.}'IRPVtWeQֻdAl5eQزbk#e Q*|\i#nj!(:sD"匼dͰ)- ]R$FI PPBp&K,h:뒂z_@hTf?+@QT1ƌU\1.;O{_z鬒AJDǔPJ}YWR՝cGDyمdW9OK[/f͛.8P2xMΩ013'}֓8I'F!VBVe63ו ]6*rnT뻛^ܝֻ;?l&Hb/I^S:So{ҳx7>Owۣ!X~?x#؝_W G/o=xkU_^7چO}zF{>Sow7&Ÿ} {ْ9]׭SV:N bTTXת*2FĜJ眛f xZoN(|i2mt!"J<d#kd合a܆ *K QYFQcC)YtCo%"k ukmN FD}':7gEJÚ6Yk]PXmJ!#_Uf:aUj@Dv\}oz9_>n }ࢨ _Y((lԼX#bЅwpvhQY Q"(,,"a}mSHULb0f*r0`ҳĔoZ$R\OXѼ)v!1L|޴8k;dˢ(B``#hGZ*i+@lOu] ZWFN!EZ2t#d3F@Umۍ p4u]g2^D,JŹh̻|Nuy˔s{hm_?6ѽTd:=_%Kׅcyg >D>d RcmYzY[tîefKXۿ)jHAC?eeKvOpc͛<`2DQ%hQdmD[AN K$-dId-I4ES 1A^ '&pz[va111v-Ng \;"2*ݻe36E1:!HҊf\R)$w.^O#ښ]ˌcX4Qym VH+c@[+ :^/9c{ 27. gm}Dp}}|0X>"*FusN+4H9:C IDAT6sU4imd>MR"Y?<0)ecQ ZWͽ81F9k(1,E]u3* e9=9.So #".rDAL"rߓo_ݒv<}ty?y7G#κ%wǣw|aQh5QQcfaϯ̻k_yfno>r}wUj3w6Ɇ5['_yO }lNa ޻=6*+oM{QwVU"JOB979W%VJ?t5g )٧3N~**3UVg|XZUd%grgij]zvӻ |X֭ZlH!0Iƺ"gB g Y˻jͶM}<:5MgstK>Z-muBsZCwں UWt>:\ɛnZ vmfI;}[uHBL,)2ߢx 5YM_jo^;gw؏Rn͟;{$ꍵbpٴNlsT=ul6KAܢnFV 'G7%fEnab:΃ M`fskb'ƻG7߸u+ι|,P  Ȟ X9Nnߛ@#rsW""07(`#"=nqIPPáuJQ3CB~N/ .bQM&Ѩ:;JOw^[v\frRJ+)1y~}he&d5#7G0횑HUՇu~YtQCNF="( H$D ׶G{OT#4h*l^5YN[ñFb:4t=7VjPv )I F[c0:ս`~zyltJQ֫7l4rN]U5:bi!vk;;(^le^}EEnέ|Vm=?}Ѓ > ?W_V|Ҁg]7w\owUVyYyS}6B”%q M|k%f`¹I zƽ,C!=ӗUTN)>LY)EV4U4wW`{&9B^{=a A ) 2z#`h]fdLV˜eA$2')xȤB2* @1 IvnO'1FgQ4iMAdU:1mµ-Y~Yp1rDk7[*O^!O}oՃ^}z7Jzvu@jp "k۰hNUa$ 1"x:wˤS.F5%B &DI KlYpfcN;sOi~1SY"bC7á4^2Z)E|r{}7p`,[ՙ5V4y *p RE Qݾ<j7]5 d"s!"ZkKZ-)ip18WNNN0 '>"D!mi\7\#yG8csF̮:AN>Z6Sm۶娼:S鍎AZT=իܶl>!!%Z#,Ye҅ݍN+ƥx2}:wk/˳G^TZQ>OyND _?zCߵ,^>dR^rjQc0isJ(Z^!GBx7~;zkƞ}V_ZLy$%A9ZgN)3NeH_ߕyz&D\kWN7J !F|1NC !J̀(Tu%s6K".UhD,1FY4"rc5U6`f  Qa|cjkD&jkuf ѷEYAm z.?G]?|{7g 7 UiSUO'VGܪr^Lgz9*ABА&5^J[VH( ABF):1qrE$pt1C,S 8D}4vE5;M(mۮ@IӪ>~ʶٓʬݴڒiRĶٳP< "dNEv Q^8214B1FAǑ@rKJ6|qV2̎Dm 8MBGiju]k~LZ7pޡw2Y3v{ãG D>>(ٻ唶m7)ֲ1:lؽz3;ܳ"ȋ̪մn!$:(G\=뻦=ȋ?_m}3oq_ˏ__/~~6\Usu3x_?G~;O$?ЋOqm{m;;;6nyUݝ֮I)ZT3f*L$oV RJ),(%>8ճلzӹ981[#ݹ9!e͓÷䖰Qyǰ^"0"䑮[UۜNsw~װİ13%۠ڳܖYH_4׍ڰڻƫI-0"=rqŽ9Ǵ]N⽵7<ng[smT"VX`Ⱥ~?WR ˗?}?g`~o ~u]2}co~n=`vp_}n>_~g} __[ ru&!dd9X-gHr&HJVpV-sszxi5^7<-J|cM=_٫H1 ViB́w>t}Pb18x|VMϖ,ˈ2cT("P*bt1YH"HM`n=z͚6Lo]*״]ym[kFvkꪽ{n?^{$BC>mRtY[S;qqXt;h>/\ *ZsE H1zZ#qs@QȁX (6S6(RHLJ,Kw<̧Yq)b$"чC]6kC@δхZr붉¤*_1*$E(2cSn;R1io%Si˂ъ$.`4# ZRx_ݸ5{zP#l7BfjcQP g ,)&6N--55ZsRZrE,X<ύQ7Uő1Ӻ= ,> M>1d,3ZH]}K{QH9ՆzRL7%TZRt>3^(i,,'2 H4HI I<ϛrEL/rGJV\UWk! ٴ C)yf}>uPkbzU>g D̑7FrM1vo ^G$xBQ!%6tp[ĤІ x6=>9/<@D]wp@f!*y!=:ܢ}Юн8v'uCm}6!R4=|hzдa+Swh[Q NYL (aHem Z5Ȇsǖvwӷ=O}>Lﭫ^>0#u+ݍᰨ1{^?7~+ɴǰ#׮챹gnIvODL}]$385c[N"q $"y ^mrfx?IDN#Өͬ&tmS}1f@ҨHu1jE-D$q2Ou]fn9+D5Ja݆53t#J 0x`-Dc5 ՆHS,kkqd (rM\`!$1*"ֳYD4\_Q&DZGrPT(CeIRdT2CkYbP]!cY;k[TTE!Mf3hAZ::ϖ($b B*ֶИi2^5V1^tЦ=[kGyM"gh(pTmLalvi]zG 1x %!Q0L*˨Y5A捈J^D¡n%D|vo}W" VFP6q/? n6ڗm, QIsdip@"=KN՝K j_=WUBS%zwVRkjЮPPH4%Ss;ew~xrQX׳O#ox|/'jr-Py:=zr;ߩ{^Tdccm:fY&"^% NPmԳfh/}c*spib6xٗ|0ꥻo߾~x>_;,я}死ڳՇ۹7{ӳ崥谨ݷAܙ-((1)#"$"F׭QF/cѺcB5Z׶$od%#% "'ոTBU6Z2yn㣃]Pmw25x0 n4.:_{Zu{c oh>MRiƘTUUUUnI`Iebqcyf͏Ͽ['\CZ&N1\ǘt5V{gϴy3^ݱ^V]yl2ɳNDB 4U=`O~{<98O&A! ѤHnNfZy>'=pi7lOhc{C&"B Ke8~ŋɊۄ;W8tw̕'6|g{oOZiv^/fO>??,^{2y?~G>cw'.~E˯Ymn}=c6nVYp8"a(h$_'hjjG/lje/w rTIwH"+cw@(مbS¯ÕK|wnql2gc=m;j6x|;_s|7zcw|Ó 궚 ւ`:*P|w|k^;TQg>XxD[#~ǣ/699^@wKGcxSW߹sؿymK|C?~[_~xpWw]xl/w\{Iwprx?tZ|+"Cd$s8,C*U,@"LRE?K/H %AU'@֥O4Z!)2גdJ q=Ya] Jp0em4|F&ON˫:zf-E8B6lCZTfL]"˲,˭Z`>ePYҙ6D55#V(Q|p>f%Ac"IT9 IDATcIi Z+[EYCfUH>AG_7r*Jf!!/0 nK~ᙿ>GcڨTbfu]L8C\\cD 1|e՛͟QBHXpt1^j~Lomԏ< WO͸d* rmrchcLdBqfٮ+o(P 4r @8w lN*mvYڻQ[Gؓxo[o~CHغ~Q""$̀I~(օnfmǟ~ѱG'>Ƈyt򅫤U>ֿG~Ro΃O}Ƿ\{^p]d{`fcٷaL3߽4޶\O3AXzR&ZL!(d*EݲxFCZ탿$gZp,Ӝs#iR8Nr>R]YWׄ12E!4ά1xvλ6"o- x<^[9psCPJ%Q2IC $,D(ɼEjuUD@5D} F*Ykbuvi@"2sdҬ0  NN1xԟxֿZ@YxM2F6ox0 v^ciio7ʑFk$Ш(CٴiNo/ɍTkrIY$˲o^\{.XKk33DJ6KJkSUnYD/YU40ԬZ|FO2L.VBN}N-{YIl;mO^?x7?oՌemwUkJwZXU:&Gp>p͛7cc۟zmZkaw6/ EO @+DT!bK0N-'kreBՈHAR`+##2XA,(+J AD@!D5R*#E@4 HDhG9_"R0D@`(R%Y+'9l-h2}rۿ=+0+YXkIe24"<<,뗽xwm"W湵V\*eY'/ZuZ̢Vch!tjLy½?_/=?9N,+ L٨eZ*C7MWvNgg+sǟ2{}7MU(roȁ\Dk 81GCԟ.|=vH@@`NzT%&^[OƵIb@!!8jڃuh HLܸ_"v57P2'Pyt2s.6xy~x=܌J{ݣ^BP5ś[`D+ݼxOհW: ޳ f3:w].Q4Z0"A/ݼ{h]o:ؼ.x7^L糭KWFEύ|u&T !35;#)7[O+ص_-"Y8'!%pI%=4@:i9P BȸdUgYϚQ"$4p$QoY]u&!P9"rm9DmUQE$j | N8ƦYfC"ED! IBX2aBiTm[Ǜ~4Zk2ZDbλ1D^x7775yoh3kܕ+W~~2Lq2,ܰAm֋8Tf;ߊ[&goo\|HFw20j AW7VY} II!xu0Oj" kXAʀY%DS(SQjseYw3_<=ٓ u޹u5v^8޺ض"- Fȳk׶;E{Qd[[7DIJ#c`L,rQUg3a>=rdz6BJ-"y>tzj!UϏWYFlg>S:/KFF7aNG/mmUhC2 Nk3,lt0mE --LPQ!u[@TTGDcigٺxӇ_gط;/v΃ӏn^ !$]A:h26L3]秵&˲Ǟ9i{.b{8=WfYv_7kS+/G]X 6h<#vNw(r+v\gٖn65)%"{dў3¬^CTW9A4z4 1Je _ХU~npXk>6'$t{gxXR#3c` CRJ#3!ktr2ϓBz,W4YRtST=j'3Z1qu:ކd|9˵-("91}bg3uKkWf*]Yܼ hYefN9O3Lv1u5Y,;g Y%}]n4[r]'7+(<72vP͜ߜJsBUDl8@ `vx2?aM3[Uz !FIʚw.&".zHK,U[V8KJuz%#*:B3aHX"s_; >&k+H)\uPV2yx@DI=#ir^=Wo_/J@BPVB"8/;4\]@IBt)#(It{V)44*&~`! g@&j⌠DM" 3̏f.{`IfG`eb>DHsk5h5œbgZRv΋TӅZ+]& Ҵw5!z19.Nȳ}krucx|mdbʹGi}ʏ&DEKfmt{FOLR UVD$f1c !ԓ `"/2OzՇ'tǗ`W`6T{P[tٷb]ǹQh{y3?.lkãS4( )fMq,t-{_j+oEBi2H*hغPt2P`.m=V~˗/zϽp3X9a J)aE 1!$5R^ of/iC%rh] !HK7FQpq X,9 EL$φɬuecp>=e̓mͮLw|S~[jVw 2 e"HqűS %C\8Jb ac@@2$4&4tzx}w:7ZcsF>U} o~~?^';3;XQD)1ʭi/ݽ vF;{r\Y>?>ʳ܉G?ٱ粵?Ŵܰ#ykջ7/ʳ崥!߽Ӽm;Jܲc;aḵr9þ1ƀ±ˁƪf9y$p8u+ӫ<Ż8f>~q./+ĞesQ'gD HdvHNU3{ū뺮.IU֋B{&qHGA m 8 $gB㩊J)2t8{lkma1KGQ0v!, X!IN! qx\U롃| j9]\q.tzE;w\|wCXओ W#0 AxMj G exHCTMq>ՄueGyoUHDKEn^CoZ,WWO/"*(ieqܥ(}4]諭Rcq{]4uG &Y۩]'`IUuY`U)p*Q9(C-W׮/dTE@SM Y C],崥<d(,.^季n^󛰿,EL Dd jaDT$Gnmu]ECփFA~4UUu8;]yVImb4KJz" D[ʙ*UUU!WflcB`"flDžu(*1iLhNۅ/V?mR-LoBl.̙]}udR4&d1BNmQ.\>­o.>[~ܻLz07u^ ԓٟsNhnbDef7ƘB V7kfH֓KD3`hDęIgL`= ЦFzM HB,Ȣ P<UUÊ峽1*( .KgeY~H:k m¤=ȑQUnKfYVڶM) D!W NH IDAT& ֢Ζ@ (G{QĜ*k-K-~mPo_?~_x\֓Ѩ$7BlEEbL@3* [0b}_6lttt͘r"bsX yRJ5o8FjL%z f#m1٬zy$!9ZS5 =HvQ8(]>} j,Zn艨^7pUUѠ(m9)i XD'X(:o$&5~"e5pus" EZU0,[[[ Z[EQ 1"S"Cduixk4UÀ$&ube(4E\Gq^z~fTops{hҁ}("ˮ9Yz[>f O~~ ?o}K{}}g퇾_w?wk}XKhE~_Y686%G/Qx0D !p#&d%q6Jv 7S2Jmc^5<U"La#9y,_p`V40YTz 9"p[l&|%7o.Ά:̃ISmgKc,k `=[IB8enRJXٌ=BDgemGg! p9iRJ/nt>wzgܾww2DGƓŋ$DW=&\{DA!dD ʠ٬*Js D\IV[X1\x8EQ8IYUN/mA><LTݑǴ?аaY=(t:Sp-`JqVŠK_V$/LA/ɍ{D,T3ʆLB:m !F$R$dhDZդ`D$Zy'Cq꺮XknND`Vm!:"@7VD `~º\A#$%H54^y̏KwOë/濭~`Ji/"1&DD00~Aw>㧗G'*̅ѷ>Ui-/\;7k'~_K~?ozn N糇n^{{i\l5lJQUh ]aJj4K7M35Qi( a4Dk3hI*v5Hj5ս+KF y(4/ qڎAC(+FTS 1uHlX$kV "Z]7wٔRCd0)H1GGGmnnTY]( (!$6cdǖ%bbHLT(\<%t]Rwv&Eצppt<ϵ?㗫-O ˶) o*W썷Np= &ԟ|}{{'/'w?3oK=Խzt/߅+_{`]޿zk]py|ؕGLpo?vu{᾽],̹Wא6:zj^l k Ky[~&rFlsE3k>)"XoW Y5,#Jf#<""<=t""҇U!t)nnoUM!nZ[*{˯=1uޒjm`Ll2<hnmm/#CȓIHd,ڔCT$[qZ #*֝7mMѥr֧5;@CǜMRT9Ou9VUI &CYQ !9SK)0ٙU5&`\|Y: )2s2'"Bf_rx68Wɪ$+DP1d_~D#aeicaUY˺.6$ʒJݬ)r{0zrJ܇0  I9'jtr~ !9 Kt9Q. b-DT1hRQQWF:3m{1QQ}󈧵{4UT<:j>3|ˮm(Ο?8ھ8ݤn0eu+!š崥ź,.wrX<eF?[neX^/mωBJ`\:c 4+`X!1&1.x1?ϳF]F&Վ̨j>{3حN}?[<6w鼧?MAٕ7=DA˱95w_Wn=7ř|wHHGUUB: jR rl]^DoRf90noE|>r3o(ҞS`4UR:ό1QA899NƪIH0ռpD)rI [@hK&;ۿG>e˭Ӄ≫]ӼǷz~x'ͣsEΡ ah[Tc|ޅN*GuI1NFck4 &a@x@eVEDHx8Kg ßy=Gb8+*hiXֹp!&\}GRz񶺇$yD5hP-YLSYpmx5Z+%T !ŎS 89+!EXV\џL]醁}rXmi74RE2NX2]jˡu#DD`-C∈E%!1oIv;sxr#|鳟ߟ{& YP7p_PkˢN7aSHV!Y86"|{!<*BDLTLv4I"+K:`Q?@|[~g?~~om_ 3ϤfYfYL&"\.urΕe9)ZQWʛh@YEr HN"b5⚢g}TUx9JdcM*H`B ޒ5h̸4ĸ]{hT//N56tȄΦ, K !)MR(x>j C!`QeQMӰQBʳŴ3ze%N{$*Uj"0=C1H4c:Bu,M?=ZV K2=]00c B:>> G7<{{{;&K""$" & xq7 DwtgG1T.9"9cIFx./\z;: ~^}\~O?&k^_޻WwMJnݺ zm] :IU1 cKo%vĊBRQDFơP̘AtΖgU&Qɢ^@]] ֔X+o-")2Ht^kԳg =cl*f"zD ބ͓(7R ũj99cA%ӛKjwyֈI!0݃QV#\@>9e% K=JXCHb)rk-ZB3$¨(x:#1$BcRD縏ýs_?/}n0ޜIN_}k,_}kogW\2aYK!Uƣ.EE 2uuQk 4eE̚6|!6ACjRylUȩKTCi+_: FNU0ɭ &)1=| Б0]?44( ,}9 @ opڵ),f[nݻw/X{[BJ WBQ,/k_ * #*=A EWܥaUv"AΦ9$yx/MDXE *>PneMt0w9kO>;=9 G Q0& slCbd؇![qۦR  HJoIN F阱VNۅMڴ5;wjx}h=u!6_,]2;W%Q\ŸT cHOKpd UcR ML>qrѽݣ㢪.\~hkowXlr !t]GEY52 CBYZ$$+,Tf?C_$lʢ ,HV5R_3)if&8:<ʣ= 9WW'T" 7Oh.>}3Ck](5ʾv2*sIe']QJ2Ъqt!t[[ne0DWU֮z:V f_2d Hh"Tyy Db :2))lW׷>ծ<۸#%%U`c}tR^lviat,`%"D xxóO77~__}~S1>Iudҝ.G˅ *]cIN:裌4$AaP8OaWsrKq6{ryL(MlXM#02+緬K & xCߤ`b@:iQYE=Dd6{nn4D(M6{&PjcW'@XА2sA' 5&{,BmY֭!#N5r:5!2  Y5%b) _,mH<bBʜ}hnJbX1}WpL>RSRj -Nx<> -Ռ馳)7ZK0hH3)ݘ.FXXQIc")./6W`mLw}i=&]⢛ iE~hvA"%̻s&$,)8%MȜNJaN֡3Z:+PX/yU-ު^o|d%ETc+YAT: ˓$XAxk63(w:"2h:Wvgwor{YѲ,hݕzs9\ۣ,޹wv&GYiy2:'y!%$4bZ&OqK@ [~ r0Drxo{׿sq;Yoṩ_\cqDغT(2b QrPNM,ȪY@CƐ/\YzQoh/3ga]ֹ[$R곑7t1t1YA TT'f&&Qq5aNҸ@RFZftBD1oMF?t WZ3Oa- 5HϠI7JTUA˵s)9 dDDV }2ZY`û' ,{cL1muB9,j4 EС8Wc1RUkVҤ%>A0QK8`@##2Zk(fNr޽jv2LFE'\凇^BBs fyptxWlX9I̴*)0*'HIL "am=3@A 6WM 5]L]*ޚ IPWUataR2H#[@GLh0;mp4!iAJoi*.JvHg/_s|Dd R?[ޚC %Th90924$I</p1}-ues2$Xb˗Ρ1deRzTw/\5*m36˲ֶx9:ڿx>x8bABeRȑUX IA6w#Ouq;YT7YU` ݁1 Tն[o6,* 'CC`(؈2ѫ/RVwwo.B$.bGSxSYf 1.`9ac@{Cdɾ6hin}ڀ+_/A.<'W/ãq]mOF83L GL;ՙs^c 'n|?8ZLhv\J*Yuynra7'JGӝj{]>(1ʬͱ<_.^5iCejm 尘߻+ΘX],RqYE]{dU2l0u)pR2=Jɘs:E(!RPQaQ#g#ru`~R)Wq|0MNIhφ\M ]5n݊  a]pU5( u`6Q ip>OeȾENbƍ1}l~7E"ҷMh3mҜu] Bfهe".sBwXʑkqz[wvxz RONN׬}BxxBp Mhۮ՞!%Qf)wnm牃BQ1rPn\R7iVP=$!ڎi5&K&̦FeMj: ><_/tD@"LIUc:4@v}߷/޾۞~K_>SͦC 0CHŎ|C"vCxr+d~K7 bY\~„VBV-/nѾuprlkd!ndLW9)"' )&*\Q&Xtm4o]Hob6U׿٧hۮUb:gA)%wuwAڃocI!MG[fy:&^^;@wU!} }_>|??޳ގF#9zYל6pPhr>>"$>*5K$}Hާ\5;A8 x6%`p&O+c mx< Ms8 lͲnnL EETHsM뉈0XZId4$nRz烾Z,=]}9Lem2uk9c3T Ƶ8汶f}p{jWU]vd[n'x@cĒ9!b v; N{^;sN.O>s9{~~?إ4놷a>"rʎgkjO}RGBNdP#"g*+TG !#IE$^wWQ0 BȦC/MK!]th/F顫ǣܯS- 0Pa+DP;bCͻwr!/@2j-C(beGمM:,k]iն瞽ofTQUΈ%>T6*AR|q6T{o򯂩o޼:{+[* H3:Wjm҃z2 ^@bovT]DwKYD:%e2,&e׎_a s,kg+D>ա~Iʰ/᠟7U'(崥'Ұ±秧eơ<w>_=~_cw|7_[s29TWfJ\)#Sr.q弩&E1j93]Q~h!(L 04:JSlbaKWڴS9oFw:Flͪ )< & )3* o4t}(}ZKhuȆ #,:q+aRAMBH@,F@E`Íl.|In'|$"]ۭF%x}Ҙ "*hB̎v8.*$*lH yH2h5ĚzEQ*^C|MSUUf 1s)ƘdiO[@~3?$(TUQAۂMQJ.pqBO:BL$%/1&\ky۵m1'xLߘgi*w/XZEȅ+Lmbqb.bїJd\VC"Ï~ݴe™n7@2vVlg@27 t>=$D??Ӈ'$CMIW#DpX M\Q5XZ,"dע[ [Zso_Gzo\>9ƭz86EYCw}7ӮT1ae%RDEa;gǮ .zxlKcJcSXhJqk#G>*.|2LIsUŐ8XLUK ) h" ՒuDGR5H*+\6g9& q@DM1HC8IBD" 3"3l*]\4]:6ov p嶊\b_2O( TmiÄhͻ-_aK&@D6 %R57-2gfGĆ #mIٱ+fH! l.', cR4"5GzvEMCLIXQɆKdP0A }PT%UA@’:ֲn-{u1 ddEAavy~wblYdnbk %/=zĖ=32 }Os]1zr)z@ @<MmNGy#ua3֊U3. XɌ}Y/x2@_EҺs0 1k'''bPPSy r[hlYϺBΣDzmo/NOj C%8%;uv6!!@ I ȁEI(TH48g!$KHQQ.x36QJ&b~99?s}uv;˯8ka\rcjS&U%nHDܢ"[cBbWžVU2lI4 ~h]K't1CAGH J9Qe 2ʑqC !Gƪvw:IqڥVؕZ] =s29 FR UbVUԄxCDrVi%v. f]~7 H Y~Z!!i=.]ed֔lMr 蜫m1 h2B[Gi;ٲ9 Z Ψ3`(p "#A*9(" Q(^U˲Fj95a߉$Zz>ձγ,G06`-$ܰ}o۾;?øٶٲ,̌@!e;ԉԱ˴ܰµ<)I53FF &)HΕq¹k׍d TIĄ1_.՜rXU5k lqL) EAAU , \.iQpiSDve,_η*wRH'];B3 jwD6,/Pv. 1M%P^dD 0&ذ|< _BG\)5ƀh0!: =%g^ F(Q5WSJ1ƒlj2sUUD䡋&z24uQM,><彏&#(>[˷'&͒e)= {L1841|BzQk I;&cm9^jʵᖭwކ*,D$&%|y~zqqW4nĵ8gK "V?J!Fȧ1`JPX)- 8;ݹlpѭCc$,g>?9?x&?3?=?;{vCH( C $Lኪ$I5ѩc.ؔV̌1e#c އ6%F2E1_MtZ wHXߺ2Ncjd  3}hn5Ƙ,+W68lQIWAe؋JJ]R,C.PZx0[K!b}3RϊdR1" ;6Uc.muw Mr%[5zePNv=ZN\9 =PUpo:FC工4GW*@`.^>.fqRєb}Q!)bƘhkac4%ٜQ[JD߃n 9fGdD?D/(@DIl`N!I{T: [UۆY;p,MIJ3w8OuMuZcmRIQdT+c)MRbNU>w2?_.Пc H!ڮ`*,q(!S)z2X'x['WAI%qN!Er5[H1,bbuٙ.jxf:1d +ZޤjԸŐcbإHBAԤO )o{( dp>?-|wbyN_}4ymX5㓷O~W_í# fk8KjL!JJ3k 4YB" QKQ(,ZJPДRLIJhL}u :&%BAnt4zԟrJ__bS䛎 љ8^USH)Ak 60@$Qc 9Æ|KޅU%RVĠ<*VѨ!%Ѩ_nz玑 @w(g~J\Z͵VU1/zoH#jƬ_}Wd˚It]Bh"I U 9ET@t`oI{)Dql4ĭy.J)n|@:{];a6Cbg !H }/zv^K 0&c eRbB94M6NaX(0"3Yixky&H0Ry?,dдQ"r4yR Z8 탗~=~n4'>3q.J*LPN 'H غlVK[ڋ彑L+PQ,\2pPTT3CH󓧟~~λ: `i<]LS;HۨND6(DH,)*ɘ5&ahTUcS6v69B>&F*+Kk69)q1*SۂS`/Ώ?q1SX)b|^z029R)+ V^tYvr3?#GWyvk<"g}7V~~3ύ"y䋯ַ?P*C1)+DSƀ*d9C !`BIT*[}cĢ(&#gf~dΚ Q?Of5^s?xswZUxo>޳Bڡ~`IUVuQZFzv  FP% KlLIe.3:'Y|Da9xD B1G@Db"-QN2C s]+aK+'YS}C/KNs~H+"d؁(+:\z?jҨ(wlM ((d3hn }Wl؁sHݛPբ3}sΤnvq IDATMʷ_{xXM#+S8WMDDQM{ڷvnVjE PaYRT* toy$+㩙ش$*^ꕯG&T>8>tqy}3-pMRZ=Xi2Jcqʣ- Z=zbpmr<25V ;fmE|yoQ*JGXk1!W݇}n\Gh45d0a7!芪4Ms;}|H)Ɠw^zP]3tbȅ\ ]7EG;9MQy՟NjY#&˦(*T|(ćeTH @u|b*Z-Lqwe:2[B%E㨲37Ցw/mzz*YVk}>ZqQHh=9gCN ֜?{?WW?Ϳ=Z U$ KQ+W'3hz\@붟/s7g!]?w?_f'`•6ћNj_b&׆y\@Ef=S?/K#W~ͦ,}[]%߯}]WtXkT` T TB.ev{HNNhCTlqz8w]7=F#&_v_1M%4%$,N[џ+0 a#F#4E!D94DD4V6Cb8堜WcQaH1VƍGX]?l#"F`’W-/}7w}iO*[^b 'e)r*G/\α~γժ/dbH13a?_I^cʷpV ׅU]9*YAUE!pNH Ib}xoNyM*fYB{z{oͿw~ӟٳ{ɘo~v]Ӌ y6Cm4|>)3~Aqcvj5 8oS(>Aa]#! +'֡Ɣ]%ƒ*q>H'!lL?L 2&T9U!{~EQ:7Em#rLv6HwR'pkS'&6u#(1&IBTPQb<({`W¼J$J{|~~.sRN|)|||~%}OkMY~ۉm72 pR!D !HV`%@]f4M&kCw@ ?IJ.ߣ]+.{)®4x9oAS"@kd̴%FƔD AlƈhKgE!P$*&,DCB8  @i"ɥYݒ.!(4/ꋾ.=4're\ֻ2c1B@l1&v#H<:o9L9~2ޛƣ#ZC)FT2LƐaXU Ćp4 bL!HS:RA@uE@n'#0 Yoiw[T°|dl d^~ˣ{Ojz T'{Wƥ=֛}}8cw;fis7L]*%N RJJruzzZ3*4ng޼N}BY,WԿay_O/??:Փ'g>5tqozz Jc$>I + qk[RRDc.8jv܅ު棂2q(Kkm}#)(um* !G_z<|ڛ+Y'H|*D4'Du]C ͼD)R!J )fTP.Oc>ɺ~󷞼zʏ!yn^1L&äB*H٬5uCl3$^Dz@0 """(@`tRJ0RXXP-6" R{(2OaV!$4:J!DD*B'kCFn"iiĈuQE/!S0Q-;d3U˽ (3;J]vA*&@Z |>97M&c|Q5xOz?G({ԷWeyg#A%T!1fD"72j A6\!0ţG&{O_ҷ~w۶WFDԮ׹d,L6]kj5h4Hu(fGk0Ϊ E :jҔbRQ5llv#F ȄLHl4֪M4Χc^ $r + ̨r(c 1iJvϹՙRfwd+ @~humwS3|7֓vr~J%( $w]I{o{?kgO/a!*`\2ĔE^A$.ya j7i9*J7%2!GHX6(RX;_ݗ^O?3'4>;Y..FQYnTYks]ݪۧbJ>>2#"]Cnڶ`lD&"˘R Ae-q0g,յ꾝/=V+%'>47'a&*6O:v22"!%1(1F2LՖ3a"u;˛w˿왻pwjݴ:D`?͊Q^-ܹz;«{͞yյ704ķ8")9Pӧ<{NjE,FBi\53cQr^ [8[TX$Q ! ID s .F}/11s,DbI@U l$$۽$QrvnD,% *"(J$}JIse +.HHA\ljyvpOs9n:NS~VNz\~̥+8 ?*uXg˯?O!,lzUEDELR¨1ES)9llᒃWM(eO 3hǍPT1}ׇgw @qqvqj cE`bklPAs$0c A`'#S>%,ӠI5&D>fcZq6/Zki&=1Ƣ(RJ}R!" iU=, ԓz2+G[$#f-5ڶ-g%/BC(B{MlMB1(SeW,Z'''}e Dk,VB@r<2Wg'MSRjzo?>W9W?v 72LU }NP-$QS )(K DI>Űݮ d/<)gkx<=Ҧ,a$L\X4qeOOOϺ3O5x m%F/Y_"zN%jpjY1x*eab 1xU՘XYC2eC=!ca+^`v *81d2EUC̊|2kq[s2]-rlY`Rs=l;N$+58p[1ǜ/"{礗Of_g~3?SkvͳL_ zL J}A;6y 4G:ќ=zpQ̈́ŖF UՔ4EI")i$CxI>,ŗ7Jɚ5h X`Mf0 ]LFWe&1HAA %/@Ki~?5t~H"IeF4:ho4?x?XL=彜MDDG!&)9??DHd r^wv}7Mߺvh2=}WCiݨqG]Ur QI%Bx`3wܺQ+A1$C氬!pEFi}Ȇ<DT˥ZF#}}.}lșqðA w靈Sd (HL) iJTc@GFPWf _]S)}@Dޛ\BWu;KM[n]̋[b"be$%Ь6,ba _Иzhi,KcLnYr>MѨ*Kblݗ~~Q^v} O*-~HtbiQ Cg-Fe]yGHWsrjIwXh>pxrrr1_]3n6G*)C߭/ HI\hR׎9O}sGҩ[W&"ǩ;\8#7<{pl%{–ؒ+ޛm:ʲ|}4}Ɔٱ=w:F B[m)\]H,jHW<5 CAŨtf&Hav q"%,'$A;MeR WòxttQ48#)CwY)d=QSknXr5bhuZc*C%yMն8:8X_FڷobL Cq1YDD{VSz\)Oc+M( .*BQZcvZ|=0Ӧn8!сvo2n>xHسj|n{ ??-fF$4 T1b Ц4c\a f?X=O{oE‡_ѽUO!-,Ts#4fկtzSo9yb\G'+_y>''Ãfw]ׯ9X #4[0]?盳) ~4.lyu7;f=zv <AM!$vAE"JŤ*T*rp6ة!ea$cYdMOOӛ_g=?] Nuuݾ}wk[)14E|s.lh;ٖ"t~Pp;E\;j0 ȓǕ3h*Ҷmudx-$jBj6/dܝ|i=%bR3ؼ_J1)߹?~ QC(ttr}4񮰶Rɒ( a꛶f7%gUFJt.P b{.VlGӺL!vaHI"t!,~L6e{eRaGoE ˕?k|>ßԯ~O/Uy)K7Qݻݺut&~wsS4N'T>IPlVU$P"bc(-IDc,@"q>X1"qݾ.9ZO (}𬆍1sUk$sn=D T5XcτPbJ6ӘTAkc +U(gѯ|T~|UhHb♈uECu/E'”h6FO>LQoy[J $(PU)eW o"\o12Q_n ړ+Gգ,W1"S:[@lA,8>>f XMfs2:WUR} `l(]%* !a.;NwUD cD`Ńu 4("%T_LW-^<~[C|:ER";b3aPV)( "q$Kެ;Ik3H"LF3dk\q\0y"{٪j"SJ]1l9M:cQK`n 2!2%_׿1l;"L&S}3i"[kH)l;:F#arBVJ#0(5xT;WX)ekU=w4&3̶*A"6NKXk pddM= NΈZ%@מX.83USlǦ nV&'hZLgiYB-{JFTv {p:FKѦ@> Uf\UX GddLtIza>Ғ׻f䲹oܼz#F(ƐKyLԲѪ!ŤU10N*_<|#\e[\`qkЇOO._nv6˦~>_UC{{{D4}'7nvfqrBVlL9ցa0u=jqm,]勔ã L{m;#5$9cDggYTE 1-Јh$$)1sa-'II4èxd:CPe"Ĥ=Nj٨ML;|tes?PJ4Gy| ƜkmFD!&jcfeTaԢ _U/sT.]C:پƘrr`s$f h1%TF0:#{&`°9WHb)jlM.*ǎ`8CZ `A ' siV hZwv,ltdF@$0$pm3 AN%x9*Ci!5پ<'=IJO#)I$O-R>/7'/7;@lYhj>hP>K44 @C|}'rwDKBQVahl<囻#dzbE$Irфo^ڽhc:=}_&lO{743̇_Z͝.0{&Ř0%氽sۮkBZ('χAەR7H} 2} c|I]ERh4qn8cpތex_Ox_oY{RjZ_ZH ]ׄ$Cx05d6sC?=^LONFo1 @w}5 '2`+Nw^{M7 &WXSZ4%mt.]R뤞oy}Ot)|kۻfh^ȔEA.E[ Il û=|hNwbpcIpw7ʥ{O_齇>yY'ng0zȿC?(le9MBֱ59chQڲt3+_]{o/Nfr0zxT׵=&'^{ng^֍'>>}?l5t[齷Uq2oikk`kkOӍ AҢW#W*˭ Ȫ**yy2|UEYY뜪BuR1$N4׶oR J2:H14!5%F6Δ񚲙 sҕ+Wҹh.̙}ԯ91.fk D,W.")%д7WDQED K3>WZ ?5jRJ@ւ QE\6WYs|-\.S,V+Wv9UswVGLDdYy) 0 C#jYeCjZ̳IqwoPBqHj[xk=UTl}j!.!D b唦35BUGƺ4԰qCޟhJiUkj%z*^ytlf)_KY6BJ\'*c{MXPJ8 C_zMOK DǦtEUBˡWCҔ+ISx=x4qcW>`lPF6 e_e\umIng+dR}Jurj.|ģ"7Nml]  d4!lHDG~/}_ox"dOcq2]bBb2(1ED]a3̄TU$^ !$A`ԋ.K~ppo>oD MC?VVB8X5rl6|R_֕CP$ )·Ny3~w]xq?ol">} bV%s:|~qe?rbkL 1 \\}op:Sʡ~g@0ٶ@t;,V!srնH& FeͰE1yponMyZ %q 5Ynx9Ǻ̸zᕗC50ֆX1C`P+ &`J ") Cu]۶!IUΰsntx,Ow_?Oݞ?_ߩ6۞yo_mo_⻾Rzi] Dd$ Ð;{kL5*"ژ H أdrq6d}1Ӻݴ1FaRU,4@3P<Ƙ׽`Z%[ݒ3Yk$U!ӧXMzCJkܜ# ␈:pVHl6K6:Nۃ!FBK"'KF p꽷 .i(])xGDDQCdt(o 4 /Bj xhǓɆR7}eD%$%@f$"$'(㺮ˢ4$ܺ_`cL?+?}ӏC Q@ղyi Jw] "\'wW6t?_?\ [cH!r&1Q[D.}2_^%>ح[n eg+$&!" Zn㭽Ӿ[7w֕eomR*Eo.m ft)v1z'ge/N Ep>T!h% T娪4&7&Q-JC"y INCw٧N7n]?<9~=ڙ^>AUB)$G܃!Fм 6fD0tMӒJEۍ#^x?z7n嵏~黟CxZI UiZ }(PQBإ$34"!ąLT!d0DhKT$+)jR䣈!LȨ-:P̹UY4Qd`8~[pm7 >4o:D= WE"c`o.S݃aq|ѳ JNUCJI8U=HidZ;bTb}C´3oNFvwv]fe7 $BkF9ZҸ:·*K=بTjrIYK81&M>}$0PҰhJWM5"a*>nMvEiEH !a׆3+Ѭlʺ?=Yg5=o?җW͍7Kw}^ Ѩ\P;AQQ #gFFfHJ vumO=pޫo~;h/_GO_}>RAFQȠUd 2ьhdGnF S؄^ RK$ M)m7t̊ps-S0VP ^nͤ\)kJt>տűn𜰨lቈQMӰ<.'͹~Eqv5KNHω1JcIƝ! i4~;8*pa"QCEو IDAT,K:纟 :y"֑4 1(L@L1Ud*H1 eYD"pRP">C*fG)1ب (7; N^ŋD&H`7]|}QNY!eJx$+1,>Ug lo؜8C]}c|ͮ0E.b$MV G1Ƒi'uW]d zgg˅IXђJDL`\T\=p ӱۜpe[i*@  `utf$M9Fkc"w'./}?*S+01SddƄ +0˴R״ͨ $0xUg88bjWM=DD}lkkK{{G7ZjC Enn"c 餞'h=Z#u_>G?[|kw/>hu|X,V/|'CU%@ x!i<7+8V$hu"U|(s-5{R 0^#"m>3R$TQos|2v槧@kt&5]:ipASD4aNH DU-7]F._?u4_U'EA_9;tV-M:$lϱQ͉<+Z *h-rs\1brU8X(òI) 1A.F#(XBTI)HLJ|!"d >8֐cgma,&1 Bʼ5M!!+" (|R&5%3Yfd- [(,F^UՇJ2ȳt(%*-%"W║+ϛG'opIfnβ; vdRlP.CQ$UpUs|xL:Bӊ&1ĥ8'*3eY `_(Ϗ't5ODF!3^54)j1f,_AL`84 CJ!=h*L 'QJS+;Hd zղE5L $ (90fD"4o-=fEQ"e-uS7n]ׯ\ݭ&t~7>tmD"E DAQڂLc"ST2d97*ʒ v~up> ᧟~?j6zɾ>y_5num9+/tyT)FĄاMm>E@`A +0z&PM)Vrܬ5X)"\?ĐR (:Hkbd4\`:F~rV7kʺ;kUuML51Fsny"YZ? f3!*IVQB}PHʌl W1<Ϛ?P[UUEQx cw4=޶LUj꽤DI*bH\11O"INeD6Ch٦[Dʉ4DDSa9QcؘCl{a_ MI!h[8 V؏&=N`6s5TPQv)yDt\һRZ "y1R'Ƒ+ d iU4yq8~by5F 1&>e+?8mgg?#ػv z"tXLVRRI:Da8=:+^>o\uW--ںvYӫ77/7>\:5Sr|-];8ؗ9Rs!&Ԓ*zu)#6ơ>FL(* z Q׆ O_ndsQ~vP%6$1i Hsz%zHo8"u ]COe2KXk@4Ćs o*è;,|qŤ@f;eWUrA%)4ChsX/ǔRuڔR>onn2s+ tE>I $.2l Q{1P[dAtl xtˮ醆 '(!2eoe L "ч˝BYu<&&/} IcB&{R9&/nx]Bhn5@b)F̙?jO.;N pc9*˪}899:<8+/<7ݺ?,?|O=kLi3c>OTll˖eιdR;MĢpL #"TSvK^b&^}vvݒ:K&bkXxUMʒPfU懮uU So\/t򊺘,s|G$1A!duo1dui|b ,19%jRhEFI,2\[kؐJ*Ig,&U!&U3ƃCtվ:Ѵx2jΈ2Rݞ]B~/bDT qi膒Pw}9 i"89˜z:fp9*Z >0ڮ㫷dOذJ-ɲ-C<ܼy_>,"挍1(yCИ{UՓi\- _>yi ڮ =FU>v:s@ηV441U>qKnՠF=-M/ʶ}a4mw-ak%09mm]Xˇo+ڈHYEY 0?<&I]M5*OkC;^{z1dv}k,S.0PJ)OJ Wї_x7JpgQWiCSSߵ}o 7LYr7B"@sɧ½a*. 87̵ON'E\'~M[7_]-v=\h5=H794a}qwwwryЋu(>89;{N,_Kݠen^W&~^ݼ_IO|7ȸmM6&MMRF@ _yz|?:;ϓj?}^cu]oKf*6c;H"hf IUGkaX0ai76g+*.0-ٱ+>0HBT~B(Tjr Jg 1Y"ΥM4%$hZca!$U{NH;Q^ 3l$XQˆ\ *pf& 0}5 J~mA9Cd=p l&g&!7hqh 䒭)++?\[1Rd g.826BptdzeBUBQ˹&A{%R!>_hHl0:FH9==uẽQ}֭Gmκ(>*@9xDL) ڢ,F'`BexUɨtըei )1p/Nlsw{^4/q=@k"h'I.d$kCl@QUa0*MHq ꜫʢI=+KPɎ (Rj> B><ey&ncc[/VUӴ ~3֖U9 +b xEm/\E]MN^҃WĎ [{{Z4؜lGn)f7IoT~UӍ}jQoҧ^|Σ{K7nͫx+sEQXbT@P6LDL6Gq^ܜE5qem~x4y4? *Шb(whSB&,ffR7m>A筭9! JL$(DB(c" #dب&3g47 9޷ffe];E\Bj%kB՞%;xl(dG򌬕Ŗ5!G#k!-q'E"H{+r]Ι7+Q`EEEwERw}.4ַV|P QK rR$(Ie/_O)V!/8cg$.?4VZ)E"IEzmѸ( ##UŠ'VФ$ R; YTS@w޳RHBv,+,8hx4JY $x񎅙 mj 1c9fZc֖:%{!x9=(JL?uЧ/gN"{I[l7>&,Rծn q7Y2hĈCUod)*&K76" 4'1D wTr- >eO,wFK먻`9Xks>*g,޻ΉXA8HEs? i9x}+Kf9?JP:1ΏE!G"X~lhh,׎eWO=8X)8د{. ᓌD!,tĄ18ɡy8Α{EJ)ն3RQVZ6A"B+$jdq8xY/vVmBUֻhG G%)sj h0RT@@"P"Ed1Fim3f3gmM 5!:1Y5v~uۊ;~G?~664,,vSE)bf,٢,^3O|^UN k ,A8kdTk3E@Oǰb&PƘл0W2(vNMZbIjHf^ijyt8D+&KZ; d6o&Z 6x`j4j rSB-B J(5h4Sd0ȭw腣Od}@) VX %yY$YolQE3:H4dڿUe!fK'TIwO&nՙOO}ٿt4ox;Ο?O|9^ifsmcvISd" ,rJ73WZkko9 _{iEe 㞶 *˲43,b_."5NBm]8c\[(HJ𢄠c:t<Uޱ3XDzĦ\sY""Qq'4;ڼ{. ^y3vy9|;aDl=H2*:q!lѯQ33R⁘< HcfG9 0#MHH1xZ= jZ(Z4M;eHԶ⴩tK%1PnL'1#7EN4MOaN|UCsh'^@:(TY:~>ޥyI ~׾7~@=7N|rvruufm\-ڞ7 VwmpnΥe{!,18$z) 6M5tW2S$ً AGh\E_MZx.nmn:^Wu]m9%l/J;YjOLi R:U3TZƠVkBai3s(ą # lF X!yAq6QY^߽3FuNoleu1ι|޶2x"IR[jT$az.?ܥ|hۥ䣏Ʊi 7c%ޅ;_W>WWwm7S\ɿ/|>h'3#R&'iJ !j:ۤctVxlܺ,p4\ EV;bcwPG5MxiUULrVph5 4j Q.[F5JI™aۍ !(`6B|cםby[ｧřQP.eYԢC^z8eB V >zլyh"Ѡ.5C;L (/$ <ryByPY HZEJ9W3i&E%C:7@g8`~m!k`.PavI B5$# Qc* IDATQYR⫆S]{y""tLk7Dcܣ_7C>sN4XI#yF2TJiBT $IUadǺ+ySlo*Ika ΡQS]f5e@ `FXusݘ,7PsƾFιZZ3?yA9NJ)vRMȂ̉ EQDbkkKɐ|nSF$)W 4O&@" A$@f児 [3 DgT+ aHQp5#UWhK$(G<ϲ( lyB5rj)Nwzq46X] 1Sɵ4~}ڪu:%>s HV5+٭:{l㦻HWn3T Wdx⹗~.LO};{ډ=W^9`ᴚgR D``ڙ;/_T 1zn)1Qr!&KZ3 m kk-FAfUx)Fڶ峾ٽڭ)@5"$ͱ<-NrNRٷe Vɵy4ByŇAę.2 @X!V˩(JS C2Υ92W:ty]d)"r8C[ң*(Dt@!Ċ09ODJ+Rd 5V137-3#<[ʹp+@{O~I5 [gַ:j*NS[cmlUUen?7|0Lحtjn_WU;gSϽ|=~x_B{j}-(uogJ߽|i=+N+$z8[]-{$t4MR݃}1wξyNkWvv6zL&hL#i qC!D(* 5,tz=fy}]w~\?}k "+ v]@x[(w'n9se4fT!-!s;c*=7ti>y&iݕrcz]xk}1NqkKo-udƤɊ6e.c_@S~7'/v:P:YJL|;#[4!ύu .P 6՘Qq(ZW]Vdڶ {<6s~9{Ҧv(OGj~9GxAdtWIնƩcٿ|n;t[f7tgWIȋ|'477?uؾ}xⰙ۔ Iy*%_x6Ig[j4 Jd+T'F̛n}Al~W({C{[ސh:Iɺ[Ѩ4 hsyDS2J;:M(:n(^$oYo5uS9+Cu*uI? ;;e4s6i2#JZ !@b"#f^-,WۜJR4ۛ c&4Mc?Bb"0DW.U_H\ӂ 0 $ۍߣ'I҄ u>gm)1BĦK5.i$g( ;;Ď)v!E!<`Q:I١ "F$wׯWW0UN}|VݵOU܎&^Ϊ<1,dpgm!IteUmp&0fFwv (1 ETb6{Mk̈wJ]u uVP*W׎{)BR.j8;cFz\3 dISTN9˕k}I4[OՍEDQ3gq,.im1>A%@ ~:m;JDA0ejn5 R*ɒ4׆BE)bfo9F× A]xvrBR÷7WU,,βu:@9>~Խ-鍌˯]k_cw8](-;*I@Dɛ[+tC;?~#F Gx4D,QlܸK?s^z?{soo[zgNig+>:|l}ۿ ηE'w~%Ƃ:xS'oJ055+;oUP 7w}ՄiLg*󧓭s07%+&YX ; 9?P ( 4iIB ,Р00(1Ftpϡ "^8Z $Mffm%y/;N,,C$Y$t`+SÑjȔ.X8b\%#XZNJ39st38>RO%6)5#6dۆN{5<dI '@DMJ%dHIYzԤi::8P 0N$$Mѣ$ur)?ߟW; p>_5'N3'Y`̚ΔNͦjMPY3h(h"Xo3!ER֢Ƅ!I?-˞V2T0 |Z[k)l8)[hmH p~"BMtZUiQ/'n~5(-_޹<5*MS)s4WSu4ap*.dxM.q5\=\s 1@ -sS@Re@v{\C2fwXX{=ۦiV!YJsZǮML$ Kvj );iwyl^]IǕ+qdE+KٴE?xj|;3omș|\6ֺC=Irzz7g{4Y;9~~{ܾ;u7-7~؎G[&I 4=9vXNlc'^8A)bB輭l5ViW frο}O>_lU8?O=y6N0jhI11 E sNҀ@Xnv 1x__*D]`H"A *ѣG)g0 5.L<=R"Gbs$ĩ~?W|R*,KoTأlO6fe!"}咄䠈L,(+"PW5WLkޯo*7DSe{hnfY3+M@E6xtMjgR-^h{xLqܐ6lhog[g\@Z ;U5 M‰cكw PrlY۫ ~PV*1ǮmIL\2jz?x 7pܜ0&"pk;%($AT P%L|ڡN/f<BDXhͧ5ߞmmɬg^(D_zچz:O?O~J;];ynd2λjW{~tҖ/>]ݲ3/>%i 8['(1)_|˕Wg;~]iHu[͵iY|f5;c>W:yd4^vI[mnC?̰0QS8'h4x:߽lRHf/+%#c"ATS!._xHPL;&ɑ((UAb2jt)ED χ "8(?+rȧᑱWw#:sHPAtbnۺyet$:Ii19`M&lsm u6ݴTw'NA+z {.׶iǹn%HW%vpxЮnt ¹~W~{\R\o4v2IP]Jaco":@H,dI!WMMKER#! *a&VWe^m%7ڠ4KXoڪ 6uSOǓPn[űb?):ht[׋pZ]7d^d]ZkRFF4sA߼ 9Qjsd>Zx)xf}7i$i8̫z$ㅛڂ/:}- togYfvm;擩^3 P`ԣjBPyz+KNg'i{H4Mׅ/N<;\GfͲ!OD/U ։榈;wcǯ~Bކ=3_dJgyiiAYEQb6;Q>++_1s\8 pT(E]0 ׹9yA;/+Sd)،[kɀ08ҡHTDk F+TViZiCJ!D'Q4ĎXB@Bp)Ab2B.;?u,/:G%dI!@QtKx+X0RkR}.;u"W{(`m#=̾yߌ`:G>Zl1Ch4(M=&{a{ZYOh"t+w'\ғ.}lw=k^~V>=Kַ.s皪}+׻8l'k[fM A0ZE&Եq#*}bQi]A˞ u$eN*۪Q5qvʊ00#3z2V3*{Vݐ̤k֭S*!mu Q@'|Ԃqsǁxwn~o-֛NvZWYܛvCPM#ul_Mgbԁ )zSi3gB4¨xlZ!Lu}mN^^[]fq7!4^.U=eFBh- l5DI1``%9Xu8V` ^"#Y:&""VMD^Q;mb|R)RADDžYb&Zӡ*3RTâ稺ם4^❴m;ϛ]cte[ggU:kgZFpt: ~TY+\;oXcg}˗n?'x28_/|毿տzwk<9]2y}|o>ȸ:9ٹ$!`><ISu̓VJyќ%ԺvPvv^yM-ѓGu7UUšUm_p}Hnklkά 68*3O0f²5rgwoϼ/'Ol݆u]GdYH*Oܤk[7w: 7^(u@B[pcߚ,:'8 59;sJ<딧JU|zmYɻL4uT=byEjLdfxW4~01|zk.-wò,ں#򰨲Ѵ/_3>'>7z>ӭǨ<_E7sȩgc[Y[WBӲխic_y+>ݧΞ}쩧}kT')Z3> IDAT6ִmU07؛'vuoV>4 v@}J8뺞fDWĕlHz>4+X\Zt9.8!Bfp҉V@8̾.&_/1AeŇr…{"$R躼ՒQ:$+ Sýi5-"c`!JPi! 8,s "t=BQy76mݶ0kH@t<ο3uc^{aWȁqj/@zizr˟R}ש?_?WN/zu?^z[ɷܵsWtj}/_gc^3ۃV-tMz<P&vn&՚!'t!eDd4^^j#eZj^2B`[QH)e0Iؤ0Mfͼ錆alݛo{:ƮqɓH IEzsttZ:%T  >\mڽMsۭo+0hv˼ɲ5ZVq .cN歊G;&M;\O7oz{3{$^1EQEwZg"Z'aF_w3}ӏ_}?qW+RQUUmvӽA_=U~7ti3Z3uMZ?7d'O}Kz4oS?~b98Vʻ~;9Oҭ^$:ƠpOnLM((#}b*+NwS0}ժpCt!wNDR-+nsyk׽t*4,=~mEyRq +eҤ PRȨ{[cPvrje4#hMiiޣ h#hmF`Ɋ,D?ٿ[]V3uE Qim0 F8(Z0v  *Kh8(U}c룪TfeXXZF,><4xħ ,˖#tkʨX/,?UBkk^Nա)щ.{](j"*v4H4ΊѥHB>)Ys^ XI_3kE}w`1P(3/o=i%}\\9y}Z)j7]_IDuՃ~Y}bgJf$ZIm8VEҝ2$F`Sc\9t~]d\)e&Csu㽿x6Me_y/"0Ȍ1Vv7lo2٨@{aZ'^XOyn4^80?|>-oO@Mox[I95@Ģ-jDԤ5j*c(!j*8R|4@Eduť#b4CJ sJ<5ũlO?{?>w-;~>:oo޿?[3}_g~YU :Ixiȱ}pX%y|[bNJ?CT"?g>gkW骚7'>w?."a} A"CpUu4Lh{yˣؐ ' #&1ZD$8aP $ ,֤FӒ '`m[4Z1Z#EÑ_%I$xD!)}֓"t(_Q$bts2QJuTYF/P&"1`EF*vnVꄐT8,'bŲukASA If\x]->sܼy~t>i{Ϳ ܸUS g^zk{ws_wg7OW=W?f9VWVZC`E y[֑ Ҽ a BnRNu`>m[W%1mɺ6щ zyB+"9tӼR.I\Lc8@8ߑsz$Il8+ߒr X6yT\4M3Ӻ2#֕ךΛ*,6!4M4EEm]jڰ+g;o߼;==Hi>o+{?ܛ}g%VΝ9}hNͩU 'fI۠4AoAfd5ezՠ}$>)ScE =a?:,MRqךf|-Յ9.=HtKWgNYZdiV10rڤW o`0mWJlPiXM|bU"|T; 4]R/+\@KSeꖽg}E|7:uo?9Qs1i@6&RAh1; ..G; !$؄Đ<魈wnOyzWo|כgG6:0{mD)[?a1ȼegY;31?gY4P VFyOA@ BҊ5qٶA[[=0qnٳ4n$ιW^yi%!eLbI(}BHNT[kdip>1&3q-%$DL&kEQ kH沭hJbꀽ,/=  ε(,f\̅,Q.ԸJy%^]->mלİ[T!2"^wt˽[bŁB`E|"B͍ (M`Odvs1ߺ8aK;Vk"wB$iZJό~~s՗^gt׮<#.Qpc֧墽ysj\~DGvwrݭaѻ|[ocPAVUFBHMf4IW4YMPVYefЉσR%qɁmbmި`6>(U|{zCX4y9gy^+AMٶ¦aWUMF{'a>䷘98ϑ +Z+kD,wQ#[oOGFI Zs^\#611hZ:לzݽ]fsmos@ĵ_6XYE[UUVdNSCF|bܳЦ+\T 9!&U}}~3?/<Տ׼ѧ/OgkI֣YU+* i3S#IwnΊb8&Eskw:eܘcʶ,pe۴yR4^XQ*I(fUYQ;۫dz\P+& Ǫ@$R !Z@UqB=YΘ PZ /XP=jFB0҅Hf֢cqc-Cff(Il>U}&K{W8R貟Q[D!Q!wJ_I"0pTN0q Q`+_(~`ޱuvc2LyKƒ Սs:ڶmYFkԻԾL~jnKD TgY9˷oݺvn_{gΜqF>o5~XW͕#gcw@vU|¨=j A6O;;>GzC#1{2+vu'"/ ZaK,Z^5x\/L'qC{ۿ;荇m?gi1#RH[}sD1=OT)e|>x,u*}pHy.LDxƭ[w>k/|n=z}5O_|te~}E'Kܺ{po?{n;[K,0pK76xF!W$_;v KfNdXYv019 s?!ǡdfEilzg! ŖZӼq!5"hq<!9KRI/A<ֶ͌ns8O1j!gW:ݡ؉s]"] /QgY7MGЪv\ ҭCI03 { TG$ *R@)&4OEpd$Ƙn2PuN4R;Og/~?ȣOi~P7a8L_ +++<}XO>u|%+&/3yɦNP~}Н3s;[^XLP)b/VUuk/g{uu(N=xTk R7U,1MbdBN`JZhTռo&X_9ukvwp??;߮3y4"4ͭX5f(6]f%̹F?^;[ ͊ \6.i B8_U;Cr1$i@"(-VzZNˉu|^|'/{^g 4Ŭg6H{!Bͨ5]t"H[\6ފJ&UrEFG?|xyw s &.;tulw!bG/<׿~m_QV޳hk…{ppzyiRcZk~դmNh+=u߹/xr"SjŨZ>˔8R@& 6 h1 i[_@ DScs4MZWMgjRmR'@g֋ȥ5:g?s /b/H,}v8fiG}wc'E1>94l_)>#IAm|>(W"b']CDTϲ,K?+FDeM{nb(U*{>Li(V{bTHZAB֩Km"+vY[|O}^`ڹ/rD3OЮ@|g\Zxŭ6GjgŌvyUBgEt,\QU0Uf~*x$JS_ x$Ɛeq`J ɜ`q׃^[y۷.<8ΡK-N {&Wz%׃QU^k@ӐrPUF Ĭ g壬2Q/u*T,R|’%|oٴgLV46xזmQx+2&Y ^t/}|o}0(yah^7>ݕtVoڞ̦۲szWŹ`><87:M5m :I 6z}H@ӽC8͔PY[kҫO:?C?o4?K?ԃ?qrߡQ) 6JstR=p1;R:5 ;,@Qn?[6R{_$РodZ+!w̳?~G_hCΝoΏ>lWmZn"=Eo ' = !d:h4$fb4JctL٠sM9v!d b1m'i+A%jSTkYqTΕH*(IX $d 2(amkzBT~AEՕ< 3Yf, q;SlwÑ{#ҹJ,b ~% 8њG#SI"fDDF{``dm[Aq(܆`$ILкsmVsj)EsL)5ϻ ѥιԤGqJM},^\\}IVò."'> IDAT{WF'tdqKO>ײ油ܳx2߷)2)Ń;%0.I:]4\"D&Ad<<V7Dd?6 P$fQz{{: €$mڈZZFxa/2ya:fDQJ%D@("meYӯ,Ƒ % Hyi/ vZNKjz=wW6VGIMzv^NU]٘GƊ"DHJ $I-D9gCdb5 ( (JGzDTH([LP1q=ZBQ !Yv@,~@y]u@+dM@w;S|H]cv p? AҤ Hi'˽2r'Si 9bDPJ0J)2 , ,$^Jt'Y,E4NB]Bmnv _Xa595D$'@Fd 61EZLB"P*!4K͍R AqH=;A)stESW'^? ]ݫ5{MybudZexXvX;(H}?7so>_@HZg6a Ov ݔ *0A H 2Zq s_AP#(Pzpsgo rgFkxmWl=..:""$QU/8A1(pZbsqF2Go 1@>1އ;1Df@aAD5o E@"XxZݽǵ+=w[/8.sT*'ݑ9;'^R}poYht1[>G1ibx6d٣Xj'b/!"R +mel4}Sm +;t;^&-ءхfR*+;i3J3 X! )N4*$,x ^>@ï|q6z˷gɿ?[^Ư{7HǍOG}f{I!8O#wwU!2֠B&hD$tJ}~bβm,ˬ#b* R} 11 y%Laq nڡZAZaN{bw!xsq.&xADA!ba i(l@<(@4a^H=GƺmbČxy;uW+,L:Ly2:8W"@f @n:FR13aH L "똒]3ƌa]^)zFZ/7>ḿTפ؇Cǩ$˲{/)Xy0119==~f>ܼx܅a+s%ʵ3/{.p˹ѹ<XSC۶&0* +^BD}Y ļ0+gfzhL͖.QRJ)MJR4٭& CBdY6 B"r R@@jܔ@+O޴0&u&0!ڄi]//;>ݰܸհ°ϴܯn6yP)"l7v<@" P*$"mQJ s"fRJM0B"R { |46B:yZa<,=DOKvc'ݟb/`Ean#HW˛5@+V >տ=<3D{REɈ ӮNjhQ VXH@J ޳@ca<!Yʦl{<:uϟJg6{u]'33izD)eH<ȑmR|BDtbM4.B (ehdzM 9( 5$Za>^  PqϘm^sǴQY"" * *M BT+g/OOTǷޭ/ɷpf~-R""&RDqC)I6FJ2}5F.$p~~w˃Ͽ[7'׊fLo tH=^W7L:U)$Iu^ E56V]sީsg b GQZDEQDk!KԾjطhB@8bAv~_wlfM zG׃zmpSoxwl2{jC83GQZ@DEdR!2JG8+"R(@.G˶n zvMlvJISm.  H1EDf LZǘi/rek5DDuh,OfcYVQi5'_Q'`vX^A< ]xH4nl6s \hV!H{ni}Ӳ{!0"OYw!K .gcQ;/V-|ON(+n_\EѣA|ګCU7?cSm\rT?qGh5HSVyR5d6nhJNSHBZr(I5TDALTȠ{h2 ]&1El@ oO\{cH<.˲bPķJ)J:Pd$@ Aq uu?ꕽ;͎s[pr|8>W;kvgwvvtjeV^ x1-Ri0ؓba>;~ܱಭJ93 ^*9xSd:Hĭxnֳ},'1xK;67詫/?tk>V>AHQ'((=E/ a'hk I㸪Aw9;:ܽ[¾w>l>Hp9`]ۅHq~ @)#33{f|y6aBDW/ERDG:Ndtgd@fQ^dyE;EOʣd}KX;H "A'UF0>[V:,ZdIm&!D"$ R-y[޸S8nn6Gd1fwFV ~d<Oǽx•;_[M/+'+O|{Ǟ|囯x:dZI/^:#֖3Xz^K)*2ʒb|}O_}>0{O?K/=d &80RkAW3ZP|-%D6V'{i1!Զ\fGN.a/IE$cH]u]L;rp;/5/XDF$o]z -S4.x(-dDdH a)m7X4@Ӷ%XqAŹt~>A锒$,C(Hא@lsW~M$-`RΒ$aB%^Ilj|fzTvXZke3z81p,ĔN$XԮ XCie1#W d\+ʹGWja]ngГ"=".Uմ#r̡񀘧4yiy(eި@Yz)Ƙm=yEeISPޮ7V|橿RK\s_L&;{u]?t9"B"$j=U D*MR\i5҃vLr0.7ϯ8z[&A"T>B7ݰڰڃl6ǵij10LfR5eH(鰟&*bYkmZf0fUؙfsN3~l(a6*Z]dk%V֎go˧*sFgқ&w{rܦSnߜt& yPXJ"xa>W;aoz?=b?M?総^r?rwPYz#(ɅaU٠ai'n#]V&e%&nUy{0q ׮߾7?׳nӬ>ΒWø*K-(勒r2.mHl:s熌; m0?˧+'cH4F$|zm=+Wμ#=r+^{7O -mR%Ҵ)gYUVJ)k3k<鰗JhWޡI HPbњb.hpD-i*@uBjXyͼUU s !D(5[%DI)im$!ШD#bY|kk+2D6]|d@4MO$O$MPB-/CӺZDDV Ѯ tu7]1 퀎/id]2~7j^ym*-A%x2; Ei9̪RD*U7M8n/1E91x;,o&Z]puͱ)APA5*nwj^]-'ȚQ;fF{`*M%MM]A^оrS=徼ZD`S]U]/{Z3ZMVs)V.3p]OmT`4tNn(imYPN9˲3VD0: Xe$yƣ gnoL]oyхM7Wm /Ii[ô2mǩf:o&?3|d^sw8dgtɗu~?p <zrݟ74vUZɳ:#Q{4S4 $e]i]{v~OC_pKO^?OίZLP@؃4/OCiX ¡ uj*~}k`k2scHIdQç/YӶo~Z3io?WΞ>;ZO:&WF|\ӶY{߆"%m[%ܚ"r W >OAh>?^QZ^1Ib;ZیJ]'"Ykm(+1 3Yr|<~ Y}{*f`1ńˏO[|BTX"0Y-'E1DRx"Cՠd !Z ut8xHa"!Kn 3jc6D <1quDDP BS@up`EPձfBmPK`[MAC/, hFUJ+cPPȐ$%Ӣ ¸M#I\ݶmΑ8@eIZm0yJ(duUۊȋWo&Yqէxm)㣏ygv5+&+,#KiFWf;kkk3 OVqn5w34wm[O01U_R5(*?wun'iX Ϥ?fo/~Qo{3o{+k %- 8)МSiGD )5^ѯUrgH2 |M;;;_|k<9Aʿ૞Yۀ@FURJfAq ږVJ֡}yڗj&Lmm]"TJQЊSm(3ϕR_ٟ'zMwɭ[G7o_ӛ+=+/bzhjp8j6GKb8TQUF3ֵCB:D9"xgJF[9TU`"u䆣Yv~)d%O#o=V^ p_DRcݐ1uRkǮ+pI3T5@o ')8 '"2?/|/V/-zw~382e M?cWUj棉єĶluUE%pTxLje[M\k`7T/K~g;GI#I6]chuOHb,QUtDI9ױUΧ IG]ni۶.+qŁ6-m"qSJ*{oU-sH@ h:שvU)mNEdӕ^{^^4 lT#E男 &C 6_2OFamM0! έgs椪D5rV"i!jue%gnݝei6݈ІgqqM!9Dy9 4ɉX53ĤD`(3YYF{kO&E1GaQՔ"b[17x67Rb]Jfe;wg 2:o:K'R!K[ IĨ+ә.PJ{[ս?4g{QF C[h3}ԖlېUuj=,3Χt0=3_^]NGA ;5y"v, eZM=ip5nf2V-¼{Jfh4u3Q7t4Ӽ:)sJz{\>|{ ܋=Wo?oֿ5zOo={;f4Um:3y {~4'EEnCǟ"\%덂<,)Ĥ1\n߹}SK3TK|~癯I7u!ZVe*D6x.k"K7ͨ?Ͽ|~G~QFfTQupx91LFټn/˟|㛟$qdEx&i^bH7ֲAfąum۶)[km]U h,nč;P tޗ0Ϸ}9B^G钭38TI2KSU)Iv&'}[w1IacX̾4v$p^9^\]#Uۦ,odqT""U ([%47ADHn3Bh( eծ*MX DvRِwZmv ˾E.!qRȚc`:GeAQ&s TTNusd9S[7~04tH;(zW?;q,- @Dwݽ_M&ήh%5GsEc\TP9kn$$'"S+zq1"QiO?U,vEBJ=Wg総EV5 \v^2.fr|՞t{u~=gFLM}%H䆍DiWr^8Y~X#|4هU}{WH6)$A/Q:kkW?s0;;;2&dagʒycݴucǦ],YX/*9ܲ>_t:=mn{vdIHI){Kh0O{~ksjV@C,d2h`w^8,On^?7'DcJs76>XcQUHbXrʢք^P@HH0Zvge!p&- AuLʈ}r&BC˅Q.tKuVi=Y!LtxmGolݧ]iۜsv(kЊnPJ,qs. K65 Z8ckrk$@d̜DrmK\iۗ9fg!圄@+7Th dE$&R C"`)qJ:7GAhpr.7hrqr~thg4*ŪZ$gmb61B䌆BQ^]'wϗ?lиfƇ_Nmv?ڕ /w\B=짯/-*S bn0G/z{뷴?hc޿|ll?[g?;iW"fƜ(DY53h ( 1fr֫O4ϥд{T&[U+{=5y:9{p2v}"?,?K|vx3ʏU;E逘lI6h\^Y5'Km(@ug fmK+/²sxo}nzyɧpǪDo$d..}BR6x zD AA""blM>%P硔s.ӥ9'XT4;˦˱ˋQڲ=.Xڰ徘ܶ1ͳ(u/װ/7f2MǺQIJ6)س١}~&w螲ȺN۱|;Ƿ{P3}-)WKT1m{?=Q⍝o?_MC?W?A| 8)-ӔG/FBW'Zxz{)%=fWO]}1]7E !Mi[`HuőC2;yſ|{P}Uś'W^= **2MA`VFQs 2z"~i>j߬}-1i e)Sp΋.Uq*xҾ]w/O~~r2 l7 ({m6ƝQC`'YL蕓~:=+zXʜ3/WZ띫Xд94}s[WZ?v%rU[lWr%"yPmi80#z;w>qAUGVמ -ij1Ӟým0]kPlb9 a2m[6嬖Аv݀%wYd7ۖ"n1WtAgOD5^i |>P̜,RJmMݙ|7n2$~0RUIH-L;h/xV/N:g {ƧcbQP@Dʋ}^fz܋d eȪh^o1/)Qp`U#M&r8PBAea;j?g1(U&2bjJ O\v~ڷ､Xsli5 4..vvG[};ˣ:7&S~5mܔaFĺsC+D`[ z9%69:c()G:mnqyRz1ުO~/\Ny kյ>{mwg_~ȏ޽wXg=R1܋Lv޺e7 N(sFT"B` 3Zk&|( J۬Y?_w=Zwwz:sQ0) r  ĠE}3Eo2$F30h,c ( Gju~{Oe״GD $ChwZ T4aCq[/ KM%KRV3dF=@$0V[2)򺚴dX¦\96TlcnlTMl>-j-({4{^ב33%Y eD4l|]PD۸XD"2hl&\ZLw1:BĀP4Γ;ӓ+W|w}8sb3NQ$-唸N_vt(r["*mLN nA;N̰^hB1sn#C"3YCd\0 k7d2 *9띀+LH𮶮X(9fz(~>g%d` 1exMT"hH1`L`u#,2-JD8mrl ,DdHxg8z֍fv>~䍴ڶȏj//1/ܭ=?<~P{?|W=z9o3o'n (XRURQ퀅0E"fbUBbܾe|=&t(s6£T\4 @X9#bծn_k訡N~8 d\۾m7ww.lN`t ȶӝmm 6&YUUD6)2ƈٞd֜0c@˙Usl:OC`*;Y[4&Ahڼ823N^X4vYbB VM]VvJ^ 0b`&J]kBQx# (Zo]Dd\^^TATDTPLN$"G炱=c 4yƩoH3 YTH)B$*{kjU͗˺ZĦ @:QBEJ,"Dw{Kr3X @PhT-6%"VV+FQ}ʭ[G6ҷO>>|)gCGg웾So*v_=j'{&I[7!57,W+Xu ɐJ-d lEA9x;3Ai}4A k-8jΠT=أÝ>YOZU H4I)%D7֠E`୔|{Ż5LЦ"toe5JX5l$%H(پpXksj*gPM/fR(8R`̆6xv[n@ۺ %vp Ĝ3gf6ko#X j%渦$6JDﻰКsJ Ξl'.MXm홈ZcUa¹n7D$ kNI8Z‡z1'trFgu0[ 8CԶ&Q=k-(`Bc3{K3i3׏Y7JlA6 BJhѢ xUo}^h9Eq~tBlw Ւ" 3kf ,;)z.Kl%ٕNl(;({^pm*" W;CAn&x\k=;Л`;㌠p09]rbYTXUUˆu-z.Ũ1 QpyWAffIgpy4.o(/U~~n'kpoK}Wz}K29NTtXLg>|f.ҽs7U5 [ D9mR/rkrL d:ULvd^qq\, ;䃉z:cQ\AgD]]9;REC bU|eB8${;OF_JL013dm̫ ކCfsNnl(HcJ9'DdZCa%T1N v3@2`g]]_jd؊\MMӜEPt hu"mux]NJ1T8CDVUۉ/uQHU[R΀hB.l0 X؍ɈhCshu蕚Rw!l74H*"r#Y3irݒ#P`&'t[Bd ;oaLOt[6iYe1:+A2`\ad%0sSŠt\wz|V`3!Uc%3.379FQEmRլ¬].SfbԘ:GJCi΍ABQV^[%pk"2wj_OD)#84rz՞ m.VK_t:eI"Y **3|GW l%mش9&o)J*JEsœU!F>1Θ2U5Fb8g4| 8#Ĩ1QՎ[s}u ]w)wx%"'XIT1,$F7KU\|fݢtja6nOh rCF1s!kԚ0㜫#mjbK ^)rժ] bg9Mb^Yk{DBSD:U9^nշ:1ƇQOWvE;Ñ3gBVQv?FɊy%cs pw*)8ShoL&|umNU"٢j 1n:A.Y`gus48@יXKDSb|zrrR b ڽYIp1!! TEUG snaߺFU~ºnY7KJpHch}::t﹭{fj\Fd[+wh^[.%l1FV٧D؝{RbfcdfD֬S@X.Yw0nX"ɮ&:Z[e3Sbfkm("":C;yj[n2*(8Is!šߤ=:Gc4Wy~]_vz|^7s-BD2hT R!7*ID@{3P vF(,;1r秳iuſe_}/~%_ 9_&5ewCi~lOqcռQsP4i\\0|QXj-kҥSXU#a1 sNjWƶ8k= =fi?^5+Y5ObH(+iο8W^:>:{`t8rIUm[sK2ֆ eZ.ZzZ*YV >A6rJlPmABQ`) U1*.rbl{( YEQXﻼe777A`jni#D΄Bt%93/Kkh8\D:3ws> ¢:,ܬL( =" n` yի?/'tϟʹj3ܳ<޻t۶-z(:]csl ([sbqƢڦI3x;;jjTj]#ӳjٸ@)kUǺIg3۸҇q wP-y:Ev 4 ,r͔ fMSvHuɲJ0Y<3h?_h+~| `Baia2k{ggp<]MA@Sʜ2sjuy9_޻wq^G i:^mF)N@ͩʜY WUkDaɑcO'xdxzˣɻh2b@BIn56^q)QK ˚)k~ĕ a_Eln޵G+8{V14 PX4#*2Xր03ԍLI+3=Yb +җq6]pDfTr=FsYRiqz||Bp60wq`[؝tlșT4uU/gXlwj27єsd,-HBP8gf΋ xڶm4[ni۴M# !x1n2AFjbKh!CЩO*̂I mFFZ :k,!BlDԈ %5ʩNMqDDh "*@`PD@tZєh mF0-@nD?}Pϖ__ʾ!vd|1N fղmeQ1Vm#!%`D$7m9^XS5u]]UqZMnIdb*m*pL+Cb`H1l%P2s)8WpQ" 9e~[F-VmM=)ձ7Ϗ|C ~1Au FpglWN\vk(Vmն7.91Y LuƐƼV˶6Ulwm3WD !8GX5ڐ!uf(ĭǧ ֺ)&o].a^.b+~O|w\4R1 *2huY"sʹ%{R +oι! "f("*Ey~rfëwݥǫy~K{ڦFO$D`AkQxgGS6V&&M*PzI2[CB8Ja+bx]1G@$k3dYDP]x2 f7gGԒhtt4 5:dfK a,x!QUua/tw7SxO{1>|1;bU!ݰٲb=ҁZw7}7f1aelGιh!L) FhJ4hY! X69Sxh $"T&WUI2eE bP2RھA J`a.,PDVK׋`W S6mn SbL M椐[_eX#|^~ZmΛӶZ N|EI"71XW*i""a7SB&Y,`?,{֘sVW6-&8"R #h~i,#whT{@+s2J X-Wm 1H#iZMe',~yvޞ+{!e0LʦcgsԜ$Q@ִ9:zPn~[Nmۦdcbl 2Xcuk#^(Z4fP^T/fwB^[*"ғ61&#ɠA*}\YܴyhsulkIMN;~Yۈι1\XŪ'ͣeK=|9~_ϣZ-ɖ,8X"$ dp2I^BdX8 `/0Kc9X%[R-\aխw[vGz:߷[&TnsI3 䔺yE07leːU$-Ub̆ "sYj:6K )tY"iF ~u\7@Mrn'U7 ss:~[-+Drz`80[dNQVS?jpBbB%A29b/룈3`4R~xB" K,5dᔆ5e† QRE楯=8Z\u? g׶˿ppMqޭoomnnv߂ cV(iyx;?ш֪f4lmA3S{}2lozv9:쌳 9uiTBtjKz" (E{T hTs!xbJeŰ֎F#_RΚ @vh.! ZtVe@ģ{TzTW()6El;!DTU{F=_Տ>/Ӈ~a_'u??^k*dLZ 9IҾ!kLȳaf0$TvKIS3Փ"*'Y(bAfC$2YEs$KEsRUBZ6j'Q4lP'^?xzGa§^£O{崘d 3Om4P1ҠU5DZJt+f `(N!M}L0Mk7mӬb^x!hk |޷eATch~|_俺Fo+~W_y+kygӏqaO?7=bQ;kcp,D)Ǥ9*ڱKC ͤjqMmǵ~j_7klԺjb- c2CTeLdEH+iiM˰jo綶ֿ+{l?͋5? (vmm͚zsmJS. Z6y!V{$ f$obTD 1*03ihuv(b c@)!9 GRΒsk!"hQ1M"ʌ* bu1fť3L2"ʓ> aW1@ɔͩX#Hc 0JDlZ{FΥ[AX:J`Ul‰(HYABιGUIeԘtXҗnHIJ_VzŠ'>NW"'Y6 N?u0 r⢿jٖ{- ;GjPX3 cjC䌭+Eg|6şųg6w}S޷u*~G_W_~N9{+o~fs}wۼpEcQ$)!iy!;u!.S=Xr IDAT̪jo{9E$jwOlZFJ 3ys X1x|i{>jR"ISRD"pl 0 vԌq0zy!ʲZn{1t}$%F$լ3"y뛛nT cʺΜ{;[b"M"hF$$1ioOADOFRr!Y-M @("o>iMjIB@2w)3[k ;X|Kϟ1Ɣn#9:{vDFOJ[֧ -nT-CD4O#ʵ9t".@"*ZjmVcA;/qTΪC?Yќ%eV@D׫qʹY$UPg;FuUH[)%HT!#ż[>L&[ DD2 g:#,Q;)._ +c- !Cѐ5Y|d\?P>6 {-zd fFF0>8޲|s؏1+1͸n/olkt8ۿڸqh}@wvcoEBq,0$P=v?LQG_W^k`k Tce7#C 4P~W`!tF㵋?~Çz﷫G|ۿ۾}WO]ܻߙgky`{-:^KҡpMV;pg2$ZsqQ_nv+_snښRDQ%cGvDL; hUuן%ۻw~χ֫/gm9n@- C~o,kUÙ&vԆ[g7=ط>xO7 ozz=U4qfw~r|a!@|rZl6/-(~9l0|ҫ7l:s~o^^^~}ۏ.'.RɊ'y^b EeԔQGq]U.SZGnCc($(m@*+V}!9k'SUU ҋqVp?,VU RD׎ ))΢w"_5aN1 |T*eXvޟ4Oo&'d 1.S*2w6Tu1sˁW ! b qI^ZR Jj9g$D"UzR8IQwUU4U7'SgQeRj"-\t$`^vG Q Tu=[$(C ]!{h܊% )]=Cق3QllV 16.H`5ƨWWcXoOc_>иԕ#B̤ʳf?QS vo8׬Z/,'䤐3y"9ˑ #VsWMZ>?A: b?("^خef_ULb[cS]{7fٌ/l[o`r649eG9As/m %=6y7_EQw<tk FWW:KsN @$V52!Z#͒c9Kʽ!E ,Wr"Q>:])o"1()_p4,I)YXGٻ9 @OCOr*pZKlQ[[TuI6*\Ɍ d,B#"ҋ, UDPT|bZBzH)B@j@E=-'J` rГQbbD2H Cb a+WN7+&/Y194ck`FrP5G{a^I&C5wVQ1Yϝo#.w1=z D$If6jQ2I@3Zu<$vo\}a#5)ͰXlTgi @dlǣu[zvgο+?W}W6|7G>}q2֌Žko|jxߞy]k7nhDFqE_ZZ$!cGoosVHⰾ~+nΈ% BPLd`ٞB2:/<r Ar ) 1L9͓1O qQǟz!4{/6~HzmXs: / # zmm'+3IjDt .]0,!Ea%/_~.ٹshfn/K*5Q4rka2Ac h8!YEz@t܁ 4~:@NZZ$-Ip+":c+ (0KI[:i@'Ay+r҅^tX+VUWSxhqzcsZaTUΕ“MӔQ-"jid3"g]ׅKn1j ꠠO YpohD څh1D!-ހ("(JN*8FRжmVu]7MOlULQl$}=Qfch\+59申vе-9_w[ Dʌ2yJ ҝ;uxm>?z @ OvܾY0,B ͻMڙU0;ܻ_?o8³y= Εäyc_MO}Ai#!ƃ[#kz n[E1$0!-:'ܸ1W.mɋ[¸FD۶]vxGV_Nsǹm,C{q*@zIYEYu&A4^'?ux^fsfП~W_x?6Ddlv"3^'_R8|ꭟxhm8ًxB=SnSJ$`w{ӣvZ4zlӬ%3FkjJ9xӬX&̂EDRLZJ$1;Ud(hD5!ybџ>*ݯ洡+Ȳ'e<*?pkl{@ 0D$'Jʤ 5H9V{ZMlod؋7<3?wa0P?~_whkK+b:w/_3|xן9w^^թ:}t4?|~7?!bfE]o;zn^o1iN_B70! y+$ׯ^fB("BIBգsVA&2f#ƄIU!r]OFe`U ιaBٕ !DYaS#-bN@>fKZ i V>2Faʼn&BȤQr4,ZDL 5dIsRW18uejyYhJБﾚR]f!TCʤ0 n;;G뷏v7mGolm"1˜"HH3%yb|p ܼ}|7Kï/ #唺|q<}}uګrACᷟ]C/޼7| =\OmiX`q}t 2$!Ffø6xH/ܼЫoIsw8qU4!1˫0r $dp:ܹy 5d#Wv+$:UFm160y̙nv)g3?x u7v@^zu⃓=ot퐇2!I\ phUa׎}T_[6QZz* k#lgjg dRގӟOO?mxcyY&еmڔwO杮ڸ4SbVf '$PD"@!G`"YaZda+JCD,'"hOtODaZ4IГ&iI pnZShL=A\9N TP.^r>B!I!!*Q;ɮ: erGE HDUPb%#X >úɱ;!+@5$XOaUL%CSfR ҧ4 AΒME6Z]$+a$G?CM~"EgL HS]G]K/y{{w9pHqַ0#3oX,KeseAYbҔhX,Fk/]Y\cC!,b![ٷ/ =3n_E}vm{?\sO_t{V&1$f0$s}]x֝3?'S_itMUum]};BKI6:Z:x?ԣWz!0F {t3c#0j_QhjR?q؟s?ܷWo~.5XmPUx|t4zc_z|辝 !0%Ĕw $w"9yYi$wz=J&Ғ:dE*d)d<䤄bHr!!P#Af.<q5.QDR!ƈPhj\QSٱg FMMaAc9PPVS |6YkÖAQ_1@Ȱq΢pҜWEiO;׮l\{cJ}= )j3J CLn,ͺIs=jz-+qepvLlÙ ogгeaMc)1*ں8>t+׾ =8ެjR<.>l>-谨h¢,<;x_F_{]WA!DD +z޻񁰹'׾ߎ;k?pp4U9"}f֩{UD.z'6ׯo<]rd 0cֲzkkjsء-F:!2ڸjL7ܱՏ㺮1жm۶룺21.$R !D<(ZT("R"S$Y6޺ q+LnHB575΍xzxu]m]+&FÆZxxAġ&ͨrfwQ0!+AzWmVGYl|Ν:PAUUUUQnljj3.ښ6["S&8XNS~5ϦS4#o0mkd~:{;wG{.a?2Ȭyg$ZEO[G}]+rҲ9*Q!HL ^Ra 8t)g眴 Ck, AIP3ڸX䦒Z$ApQ ;c¨o8k=̒^CRuK $RLJ)瀔5Λ2DžypsnO nTn%& UPA:U[wV5 B(!>T`8jܧ4C"ȳ0+>h Q@vP1Ud').ACY[O V!JFuivkܷmTu4i v>>.-9kmFL9SvH Kh IIV&8²[?T(Ll9']!"!]'pK ǜR,!+! dX2As!š|drl!snUk.m3OzSU,!DVD&Sݑt]!ijPJk=aK}wNx<^c2a$@R!%EPE7/UTu2,KC?uA4 ɓ }[/Ͻ ̪H` *PIԠY-Abgӌ!!&No{2870 @!$.iU؞j-RQ*" #2٤&c-K ݃0XW\:$/ bqpp0Oۛ:캷PFǀrWw?'e>̿\xu|xcfM 5&T`HGP,D'P !t'kon&qSߏ7{v~d!t]L-Qq_cN& L$Xb9;4m2 3[FĪ:k ިV7q%DFe#T! 0 }ߋM,G Z8*/j5$2f "[֔$ 8@hGt6D;0<TêcjæB1iRR$@4~Z[5ijy ZIt]}B!H7D bJ}K5Lt\Jp_Fh$4AU: D5"3 *13"/Mq;(+DqP)h,Ba1@&PPr*_3  Tz:U0 jFdPli9"yi^jZ>$"2n=ÜDó֕hܕVsN1,[ AI@PM#HSN!!*[v}aF ٢~EbSE s9.+XCrQG0M zwtv,޿_x>л{?6woܾbqvc7hjGhGvAEΪYD$9/~3/~3{3W?ڍiO=31ٶr5f5υRd9'PhUcbٱ"`"(!zf5R_iBd*>"v JJQ4̩ )%\[Cm}BΎU0K;u]!"AUY{Mm+oy#"&"~0ۣR4 Z:eþ4=d,[mck:2XrV } .ޫa9iJMJ"X T B%$ӭ`b!3z{ZU,9U5j,:#"19" ;FW #+B:Z92!SM4v2ItTUk_*egJ+S3"N%줣\>5KAKC 6jx徤˂7B֦!,dg}/n Ex_>λ:",8a>cDQ.T½`Y,Q]4øn67sú1n~ާYB[Eg"9wFZ/9FskjȨںf~Yph4MHJ܋j)%V^%+9nny΁׿ S/}?ۿ~ gwŧѵei;Jj;;;zQABUU B)~DUl-Pb>8:Y?kko}ŗώ_ޓ?uw?]#\9h@(a ArAJְ(sSJ! %-UtHdV :Kt+-4CFSJuSc.=a}έ/3t: ! h a30 IeYXASDDHH1IfR㫜s!ZA}Ȥ`|S5\Yg RT&!Ч,N3Z ˗Ar)HZ,ii)YZVBE\TTQ`.TUG؛ۖ^ako};{}cg%! F 0 TSB``Y.;)qRǐD0b$MRw[7sash*zu[Z[1UȞhflSyFhjTH9sB/|%禘]s BRI"Q%ID/ (̯p)b2fyU~ )JbekGZ#bl?C Y~3"KIXj: LYT|YOSa,E"DRQ(b1!5V3zu't~^غ1`ny1qhY;fm eEBP!" ²@0cd1HM Y)t=`rj]ߧ~s_~7|7aW\Y/gO40VB^H)h(j`f' 157=UA]8wϖU$)jX 0u ,!6[OVlኢ4 ɇХ}VLIPsEU,r 0w"Z>Qscg+,. vqd&<:a &U]*e}Ey %⻠!*h"ДEA9r^F ؅nw("M6uM Vb*lu:,]ah~4ÓƉueYkj+ [8e1j'1C3c<% Lvt 01!# hGGG"زH">x$2fl;]ZJED^*jf j v ?y))I$J )fܤ҅fNH TF@ANZgpe@՘!`PU''3UƀUB &߶fD# FdW$벜_.S fZSb4Dyɰڐ= Vei80Ad@ ˕#ŔRv!EE4"@uyXdcCD3-әaң"? 3KÎ-{"2= }cc7h.KaJaJIDŐaґsі$L )c%fdbk18JLICl۶ʀ(]6|n'!ylK44s&+ +;;wb{gsc;+Uv7E@1%|NyD(Ͽ*_&$&Kl9Uec!-.o.LcB@%`B Ph|rȥOcBVzeJEq^UTATsPA@"`BB`]|H+CW?9MuW &SJIYF s%BU@( T (0F!CeUv]7 c&vDD٢pMe$W*3EcщFP:30s?I t9JO'>ĐܳΟ=7>|~?а9"ı𳦌F,m4?/ʱ6;δ۟v3f=mܗ[&<'ŢG[Ojcmm(a >J y$o[J.DRnWwwOw潷<M!VUK҅*XΏZx/lz0Ycʰ8<"z3 bu_Ap;EaՀqLJ+3Ȭd^A IooV9p/ً}[0srRE C(i6sUl=B_Ą uY=-. 3[Q_  a+-Br.&^K,CoJ*yk4-Yr a$YqHJa44irP2̥sΑ1ɴ+DBwDDָ0FU6٬[__/M#]D)iNKLQ]쌶Yם 0[D'*N$(+{AobaɝE65fך+$]hʤ$B()EZw}x㡇S_:}OʻN'o:B @tu׎6%z֡NחЫ[ ٸGqQl] cY:[-̹3gEc L4 }f61to[߶>PwkpiY2\PQp}}}0l6K]j;!SR2|٭d:Oc'm[U`,G y| Q5賳"ۃP%Vjd;̭b'?;+#;Ϝ/z-֚=9۳ܓɳ6鴳鳢㣣ãի翢ҵ<IIOΔ`[{g&׮_vN6 `3mkVV)%C.c檪bZ@NBsƴ-bF;W$;U!TuDd4{u{m%R3&C7M/Ex|JoywڧӜ,4@i=֒!3#9cw_W -ˉy ^ 1P %cmYy!/CX!CJeY4xA ("fx>1ߐȀ)jyR"h@UTF4DNC(( &I _Jrխw0^EԬ`uK?,Emki>)踄 2nRSí^ @X+b] J $P41EQqɑQUX٠#XU!H4iiā%KSEXp YfFbDx2:IR"Dvo]wxO{]x8>|t̩T}2m4Nǽ`+RaT]g,;F4IcA Y*8(s@mg"APQJ[^?g]O{toѓ[Q_wgt @@(kQؔRW<~|9b\<۹Ӻ` Y] j~0 ;wG~WoػG~u4=i_X?왳Sf&$J(%::$?9 -~ )d5P?F=f[XKXSHCb?ȿ+h !|{\-.) X c9h!$M">0 Is\P琚19::1QXW㽟6tD9)Q=ҡ5'dֳm6P8ch}W+C$ȀEc 13#0`"`J)[}*$fZ2 m*ة7voޠ&vq6%YgCe!V6f"b([խ7&/*(Ba#3]~^?O?fpЯ~om릙L'G"e7$FI,1:Se˘:^_U X֖Ya~wsb+1΋2tD|۵ujRAoBvB9Z\χGBC~kpS ] j(:RB&9k{Ue8A+RKbd0KeηۢpdANRH k 1*"b@8;2Xc:.,E_e[VTkyf4r4/i$B\ kI5!2 AĤ1JB#1y@qi>D$bBN-dfb[|k.FmۆDM!byM Dp3+rx;zfho|;:{˛o~/=Qo;wSE-f͂Ǯ[/zd^jPG*`K|MV|M,vaH@ $tmcg~؇>0c?._2wòl|lBLa}4z Bb!to@y:;.?a\LUADh "(;y{ov>s.=9;/f 1Gkv,ɼs<#-{ǖAIZ ,GU:DQQ!s YUܭWrYzZUU1lOEYafg̞'}[ Alw&UQ*+:yA _eAt] # !pjA Pk(#"BJDD(!t]4M6lFDs4J(XEBք.xPर.Ko\ &zjE7(Ze[& _=VBLW9X_GIP@5\ɇl ņpڮ1Yc f "B̆ƼK*ff1 Db%"lA"x]t3Y#R( e۬$I@$Q X "`BRupn\7uްV醭&akwgm9.` ʢ7[מ{ g@1ևEkZQԩS[Kn ES Q एI߆l3>ܽ~>||C]vd:Af:sMʐswU8Qnl:WƸ@2VD !$՘ԚJ1xߵC6uT G&+}ftlLdc1ӓzF$ SX7]n_Aq3HKƲ"tMNٸW:8p&]r-mt(u!\9bJ2$FCybe1\tdL)t1 1F61;X(@oj( 3:r { e&z5*AP֜RʴΩ1.Ao=4@Uu0("&W;%DT5*uu{qyb06΂aU%IF1LU DDXe Q RJf47PED!/i6E.I#۷r8m!q (UW ԮD7_| ;O_x>?U߼3'WƪwE~Dp0 4틷| pmi T"H$$DLe\ɶi8~ιk?=mou@!xfcgmmmo۾tq7JA=9>kƴqiݖN{7ƸusN+Vf(JQ4!2Ͻ ?Yk6,; jE o}Yӓ[NzV/y<.\LB%$˂H1̕O:|Li3mJV`yzu-Ixkc66SJ49XW\Q=&@,$Q$%KlcD PcL eɶƵj]xDFp1Qal f}F2f^DLs_y06fk_z0]yO=s|pp[3?>''ߗM?C m6]T˶7:58(^{xGtjkgݚq2,5G_ydxz˝na^0޽39˝ܼ6P-mLJ3^WEi}lnǷ?x^xF? ΃sUE+QU#%1Ef2BSkݟ۟ 9}˗?{?zA3[7,ֆfVu:k{~9nK ONnް w+C4 cDsrҕ׫LK*4JoQmx91@ =,=aI^o趭SEϭ:V'~υ}45(z&?ūa!i4{oCξrB#Hi WwÛaRIBSb肏)AD:khɵn7;>zۛG ` fqJc"G-_h:ALNQ!%eDu@Z eDAQk6 A!BuDsiNZ^y^F16˴A J*"vxztA1֞wCbldpmQJɷY kUUIъCj ҶW5MC3BNߕDuss3`v-UˊMXL"B%]eYUpauY!r:*YK1sQ /iBNvͅ4(;b"‚ 8yCf-"U-x4rG}ʱ^UQՕF_$@E$L$rkʀcELݚdEE_%c`2 +fVC ,kuu|A29s_`zUE d5/~$Bf\AcrujODq"Yb2٢ǗXUUmyn*mAĶr# lT% J2DURBդ O]P0yCD|ڬ׶N}οW޸|υ镛bl3IQqL1"1wBa >_|Cĕ{s_=8TlGIe%Meo8{pًUeE{ 6|QEZ8Dyt #{l]v]\s5u]<5 mͺt7Oחۃ;S>^MCƓM4i@F1םoM?mL݃7u]][n* eN qVP!> $tlJww)^oō/g^*YR($1I3CLΙ[++ O!FW"0gcJuמ;wn2u()urk}c7أd}GpdG"@!@))>H?i>自S&$k`b~_c [I%LI"1hu1X%4tRϦ]#νjI DPE,K4z+؅GFsa`ADi/ @`Bҹ209D(!"spį2v)oyLes^˗! e`q-xa<3;ǰV|Qms6!hv9bfFsNAd ![Q*X#,Y# $Ŕ. 2䤎1[jd4r[mАR$;ek ('vX(ոr+G'ڻ&ӦE@cDՠ=<.(㪲Ud 3DGoo~7|C3)OKGSrFR,lr{AUˣN^{")I(:WBólu]/3p25S4 ccU dT @߷ejˈ$ F$yj9 ͕ `~wѠY N+2y9g @ÏA0O5%tdN۞v|*>t wwc"rl;LcN'L+( ޜA[^|QgJ # nIgkrmkʕ+ۧd4~@M@+|St*&w{ի_Z8^Gc;Q:W==?5BB Q5IIT؆OLIy6"XLi QcMYTnʍP0><_$39<~׮za5MH1*IU i{mع_egO{Bߖ vSo/ dĬ*Q a<;>O[3_zc n`."Ɯ9ݧYZYlΎDŽp߱UiTAjXzfǜ ss0nٮkƹ$,P*Y ii>()6}19ѡe2戔LloK4`QEѬ«9H(Hf4s]urզ_)ܘDPD M–o ,mss)-2&rF!ke%{}PP4ݠ6knnztymU=s~ݭրhh $cppŅqũ*T*.*N)IL288P)ǎ!1D IDAT1AHIݯ w8Zc{'Nz{ιoO]|#,k gDð1RRJGmƟ]~Fw>l}Zd C*r"TiQ)yCN< Y_;%7Z7R1wap7-+iymwu_Wҭe@竪XCJ霛m^pz5d<9Nh4̝ga clmc[ڶ)կ+'菦H\؄uCf`+pU>SI>zQ USUߦ2(G?Uꮎ}U$헫JPΩSlf ŖhItR`aGW뷛s6Ô*ҧbDԬXeMELU֛uFyFG(́]`Hhfvv^lG|^;=a懮_y~gǴ,f<\3-xb";Y:W?ٗ?I _˟LݝỨ;MhD!8%q"JF{'>y/|y[_ | a}8O~Saf/_~/g{?oo]Gmu6۷\?~Szt>~>ykC(ܶ~6rZ܃'a 10jIyH)=x2`\ܾtx]gu<$K^q]Ɯ Mc􋽑Vr:<Ԟc|N;k9{/^܃f"Pah٤44m8um: 7Yft]revx}̩G^l?w|>G?7yU0l B1,6j"p[#{f /|;yKRJIɶf{W f&XyX;)WFA< y1ZԦ\m**j[֦Rዐ0j0!ĎxSMYN ;v&>򖩉U?,hcq̵ƯDU?:N;EM.!q; \)%bcF7]^(}΃)VT5'ɐó !) Y.fBXv13SK3%DJ!Fgf CB@d\@7z3 iT0y7M|lq`@DƗJ͈чu]h/y)Mp;C>vzo]n2=nya8y5> {W>v?W>>uĿs+toR{K{O/ %?\򻏎ɠ <3<`:a=zX-z+o|y8<l޵m0aH ݻqݕ>`OijCZ1bDPu$хdHؠڶ}ҕn_ӥ^og\3a/\=nqh'swqXf4y=l3^vxF4;6噏Ǡ` c<5YgUko8pwej^]s/<\7˷lC}:{O^2?8;-P%BzfWg{{{j\{ry]۷qÔ*{':si~yvt Ao\z8}_1Uh~tXpe~ڟ^}c3?j~Ĭ!yw\w]-9;<ރQQc'1'rfPR+I7wJ53hy%:S\(yI#8S1QT[ԏcm8QT`;KE& TRZ-o)mΖPxе<*:Uߎ6/h(b K!bU5oyh FT{|.Pmg8YڽϞo.w'%G]>Y_۟5=g|wȍǓ/6+O\™‡nX}g9Fn,ڛ=Kч#NCEAf9s0߻w϶PGrsn(Ru %\fpo69pT#p>zBߵDDF"j#Fu/d)8j-cj 2wi,cýi9S"D /$iBx UaBĦifY4wVC"2&ɠHRj, 1`@f@FJq~k YU}0syI8 %Q-XTc,1K㽏-Ħ9]-gF6usbD>;hR96]3i`F8SOd43`M{foLZ3)YEblDEd +Y@MU]l+Y@jT{USVw ߆>b@)(Mu}=ܤ~:JHJP]jd]"gfMeLE}fft_)c#qW/2l7y5 %%y$"PJ}#2Allqv348){ O7{ a G{{<۾?/io&;OGWwěwpZR;bCgj{E@ΛG9KQ41DykƬ4h'ux!4~r{G/vS6z)0b!Q"6Qv**5U%Y׬!] HNYR=C,fZ$$@R ! `fժ=Um4733#3(ꌂ"`ԇTUM^ȌH)Z,T\ DZj`$݌ 0k¬9Ի>o}SJsv9̈́Y[)&Dћ#:@!"zgYXzEDַu' QE*R.%gI2kXFUAjYwsrC&GXJaej/*8)HLtR-kb$^S[\k$eBCUڪW2m!z65'5vbbJD%oj)\DĀ{=od)Nˈx|_"%lPF)+*"j949"̥ hҋϖG܏j;bt\q#x:{OտW>glvy);O_xY: Koo;yĝͻ/߻}{b%JÎ HL[j{rRZ@+(c-rtC!t\M)b H *YA1T+E7ԋlNDclZvIY+홹.DT1i˅E }GV":F,&ֶK9;Θ94.OUk|{[kܤaC"ٰzي 6 ޥb*NOs y-Z"UӬqqA@FJjQ-fZؔVO1Fm.[>ԝ>/Vҗ畳`=݃x\ڳ^s><7?7?ozۿk>z`Z/5@fYժPpYޒ:&BhvXR/Vt^֔&7jFA3#@vX\؄}L y{b ]S--ha૪Ƣ9ǒqLLnmoLrKyL/RJAUU(SIF`v gYjd>mvZfLwfw$"XղX!j1;jZ"*3~-uSQ!f^ $P#BV А<X9 CMHQپF!u e5ݫ@# z|:  `\-̀XBQٙnmm|]ͬi+uɥ Ui4 \뵘YD5s0if o )S$q7^ƫtklM fE;wd 6/wVq] mv1"6d斈y}jN:y_~}PDDLJeJ "aC0rȞ 7"LJeIst#}KVysl/<_27=أs}_?/}/~'ë_CS7?ϴKzy3wS2elDrX&۷o_>txp84gƇ|Bb6CJPr w\p;PR J%9hW՘F\E"p6;n6(ℓvm6q39niȸR}SyTgI\#:(\bnJy\mÂ|*%iɠqt!"!87o>ձ<5MNhNco GլZRs"YR2dU0@OGwbMh*#@X zg ȈM$"5+)m6kNFar).#789f?=0 UP3C5 8V ́#_U Q XA뺭`(U "J )UU6)9i2m$Ҫ.&諓i}qNI;`{8I"8OŧBͶM3{UWIt Y8@2&{ R \;>S33YrA~̨4ׁ@j*ƤH}:[Bwbp ׆I_RH~a99ụo[o__O|O<~O?|[+>O^oio2cnute]&~ nKJ},,*BL̄t('mZ>oۖЕRD23ŒidChfc~h (xFoNClwV0@cr@J5_6FviDZB=VUa8H!Py;r b z44sqe6Ähh﹋dD꤁8)339T\ 9*7hj56mLj m)*R\Q0QʩH8opl, R73]Ú?S@5BU)Mff$P)Es43TI%yX+ ۈV[5[TUJ_q' )"Hz}/q\@Ksz,c%".sLݝmeZu](cٌ8A+EqoΎ_-9`.**>RԊ y duZYUy~})[7\O/nBU>?/ҿҲ7ԭo=尿>'ڧO<cg9!'>s7|ÛK˻S'o÷\qFis0nUi))Hʎa@JiZf2fD>%:p>41Ұ9puErN_g})&|͉lg;TBBU&2l褿[̓j7l6jLYaaS&ONJ)'Ґte_'Adb9H)(guݸGwqI  ;DD #{oUj5)Z.K!QPqȘiR2$/ԔMj㽟mӶ=8!5JJN©z#""tf(9q̥Cjh`HfZȆ}״yf'DNiKY3 #d3}-1k+LkRI) 9~ޅvAUsAX9U2&HpE|;dj iu[U-c.ĭc "'\l.׬= fH#:ha }9`E6:˗ypȩz࠘lCB1[c)9x5(>bCÛ LԆc;-|43D8/r8VoߝS)w^/6eT#OS?w֏?Ƚ~ڃʩr8;/|{}w} _y,K fBsG֛g?ˍ/7;cB\z+g>4ȱ7ع1ץy«<Tmg.FSؤqH8֬)F8*v`h~] (w";99YTHw`6)E˔f r䲺QlRFh3]$$Rr :C/\-2 ak 7%՘X=oU j&F1pC|$FCH7n\!̜cR|Q?4sc"ԛB]vl%EȌ~NjB`hj%O1w}QDŽ|-Gw&FWޔRYm=qTf轢MS'C`fcS0Pl6ߐMp)eq h2&sP`eSRTr%G-,Pќ LYlV=DvyuXb*$fzDrPŏ}۟xϼ|_7{{W>OGyr=|?w 4;k2mUތa^w5` m\@bmrCfT IDATɘ!"@6f*JEǒwޣg mĴ)lD*)ra6o{eFmZ]}U@DhV{ Zʩjm.Ld:jT3YU 83HYNM[}$q]FSWeG0(!jc*1Yhlɪ2爨f);ޛr%*"]D- 6`4Yd5&%k"wPh̤69IbE6fo{bf0l^ࢋ T1Vl61vdYåL)csh &#f})%J] a L?yVY&5MsJS$uS, 33ls˟I'tD+e5)n~k6Hv22BddDu Ae̤h;q\J!!@O@UYʘSQdiUYULqZm*wp[J@d ; T0w@q9E\2)S3/"J|?br]7>mM"O|x2{߿w^;~wd@ DhfjRJQ.]h3sУF2Gj ^,BZq衍L,XFbS=&F+IvQ?53K!"'b%WtPpaD‚Z,Id]CRB;Wq"lV52jhd'%4Z& 1)2׮~hu)IETw;|ڦ1I7}*ykATSQJSRqJa%׼#8QSU"UHlfaGJt5' !vᜓ Yj@0Vh1H)`ɖFQrsX Hf*Z!b0Qx_&Tzu0sv1 ZJ)0bZJ] |8i!!r= '&fFbԂV5EPCOeNUz#|k옓yp ް0P@Ư\&:Fϳj[U{C+ Tm-``cThAʋy&ƴC0PLe}p/hȪu=ȇWi~Ok?kW?<s/3~3^qгzp٠T`^?!9&C|;اCk#9G6@03`6(}N(0  3칋XLPΩܐސ1mu*+JڹJCh@}Lhm 6G+|`|r}̬rjA]ڵ>06Ptmj윪V.}EoIU+052 i\m ?l %"ׁtffSJYV9g})wFբjqqodH?nk۫פZ PJIE02:"cfNF,) ʊG2R欪H F@!o }qrY{kmm֮N)euV*L+,5""R[zR Yi|fBj;^ >!+Y ȻaVfv0ʵ4cTbPOpuo_rL_C9vgJ=aql0{믿nN4 C&$J͇nI6 Xl!I& Ul4M6%]vMK"([.Z$[ztr.0Cc!_V13F;;r8!MDT bTPdHUC+ps#"if 9"dɷXQYoV }t 1pj}֝smEd^o6',~FԵfryUi"&";Vs=cԎ޾}fr7rMK)PrJiWC_JQ=u>";#Yxcwp w˧]k{QZG*<i{'~ kW_{-4M4aeEIurR D1=`-oo8_:4?{~iϟ(ƒ7х @MJϚ4Cg*ʥ7n(9 {W/k#/?OkǪ\r>;;~RA38 [+/\9W?K~|_o,V29tWVI!"fC8:_у'y7_?vmsdՏs+Eq];)yYvߵo8ޫk莻v;qۊp@"( DPB@ YH !€"H"!LƱ;{*WuMow3Z?9MKT*u= n[9_+}s9?Z|OnNXͪf2k%xꪩZcSRTD٣eYߺ(WUS SJ~`Y}aVfcΟ^;/w|K_f!)Aq1 i| *w,A#; $e DaVG輣B=U͌Bft?ݦ0;mo۷BD %YR5Pm'm Z89%T L!0f)E䡣3ZOy3 F'`qg6N0խw\; !N ؤ OtX~܊,. bjﭐeuUlF'/O_ɗ賟g_^~ '>vݘsm—ݺ'jz/<ӳS::;\e9^X@ver$ F8zjIx'O=;ߗc+~tVC0˾G|GɽݣϽzeH9d6`61VGq5*П;x;_O?[/N gLRNn\n=ҭճgk"aO4K@1TFeGfܙM;4gؿ{ShEKU[yYʬ1`f2C9Է_|p1-^|<7$yC<_;YVTHxw{>_?3.bl 2I"IGbU?tY:>cnyU=|ރϽ7;櫙=**pu1O):)X&+AU`(j':~BfVf9YYv؃7P g""`¨湛mܾ5TP-+fEŷ{ܤ_7|b}LIrdeKr9GYUqI\{v>e0 fjfM#g(_I`"!"8Q1ǘC_{dIw"C?۷UDSSTQg"UH=Y}W$؛o#W5J'Wt:1PM=ivlu:}qyj W˫ҽ~ @JJDXVtzp9K9[M_|_|IiӆYq*[k w?f(-x/"SD&*3qݝQe K2Ͽ >mn{JA8$ኘ0@dyS+Hr2e7-3Z6RUd2Bꨇ#~v mN~[o|=lwCupŸӐ210%8}䞾7޼}'PUu $Xu:~d+r15y_ff$9Ŝr'~^͸B;Cޢ|pO. GM'g%yJ׮JFiH֍TW8 y3f@ETÎY5492| $Utj47fV)I ZhfVpŸϴxS\\ЀfQADO㘮y=Ԣ~-#5\C pGDX-ذf+iIWQ )n:F3Nz{؆?"nJgd2Aċ v*6X #!3lfh6KzE_j*H4Ӏ2(I9"Wb  rJy2-}6h?'䛚*<:uBs+L35{G4ʗo>dEr!3D5a!c⁼g{ 1_{z;_ĴN18AlVWog'/~֖"y87hf&NT;Qm46 2 ^W*(#$$A WDsTp\E'}Z^ͮ00a} j!zr',#933SJ♓bLH="^uKoRE[.`ݹ9 73sMf6Eկc)xcM wW;iik3ì<ڝ7QcJFUKeOj'}9>WWrU;l5標 lX?DT;"z=f_O!סSU-.f|}pMO X/>2p};? ?V;44= fՀɻU\hD3m/k67+I2jB 3Kcb"bBQ]Q1e0[.bݐ<򓛉ah@ ϔ(R o4%7HI7·Dmn^áŲv(ܪ=}?|:q4SwmpM[9s6 T寍XE˚EGf솮E11\Wc.[t!X& [`1Z"R^K23#:1 uIr=" BJmU49Xʓ|{_ӷ.v>ﻴ6>}$$/=&νg;|ʱܹOi0F~,tˋ_*9#1)C2%<|;߽|0r[_hݏhfqL}%u`LWWCNna7bjq5_=zjqs;O"}$Ѥ`Zlq~lg߽Hʒn2`H@"YB{^]C?O_y?f\~̇ԕfTVu re/vw}C|nej9M-b2(KBD^,mw^zeEŮ0BT@j0j};Qgg }'Zo;ﭺ4 zaE(dNZ!bctƌbePHUsN}Hd)!%kyfp#muhxH+P"$cL.01&^OLTӚ/lTAꙕt+l|1*Uf+l(L>Nf:n+7 Svuu]yBh@@?m.7damg殶#i2"rk_iU؆R)7`3Sl(dKդqgd12#{*%<veMmo6_vsk/Of< :fK'I ڝMu{W'_x?7`g~7ﷷ!(e|c+?w-Fɝٝ0uO&'7g `>8ܭjź&S#6QSs/JW۠'UM Y$巇#%1E\z'&y??'~?c@lgS n1Iv}霘hB㦪֏â|qro?>?~/ҺSઊ3SAED9aL+XDH[{*ՋOoyХV2 yL^>jO8 &;Eןw/HA9&2HL }/}wGw==?[>[AZj$k#0Cbm_NU79a>_n6 *q (YI\|> IK$9Mo!`P ,p2]\.cTB)qDR7a5V[FdeLf&bǾܝ:~h+ρR]1):v΅P{_19ۨ8C)9)]-2xBы=h/O/5~8uoO[^u94F mU~p|{?t{޻?} [,˫Z&%ZP*}[צ=:zw ΛV 9qi|v z*j~se5=|o}_M?[~O=2l!t6d~+Iu=10 |wvOB`wOyլ)ۘy4?X9xhr)g`nmuQ??ngd5NckLj yҵo6pgD;ouW;~@VC)Mwv'DZYP׵*u}a}OUwk"dSDd;:9G2!1so;?˯BW>ƯܽOh1c /0"~W,W{^f V򲜳lz8cV+ Qb1ATww PXf7`kCyƱ#qqLy0@ɨڥHZa1. E""#tȁ Zd\Uw;v꺪5I<Zrpe`{*Ir 7fɕʨkGOgak|s7 u]{Lz<mD4TYU@njuVuR.1"S3L]#:;[s{C$;u$פӈUor1mC쫪 d0ef2V$Ȫhu|DnyeU=yk/k6\:l_m"ϮwgxP=L\WذHb<^}!c\}fվW=&#\V؟lhBS-KbS:?2ג޾xf6US^êmz?x޻{2jzޝ rD@e{ygyr]`;&݃GG\R_\CtfKۧiRUS !4MS|!f}w_iOT:Oz! ޝۋt:\-~?(ڸq+ ZCjdp*CXq]<mwh-"63_ H`uu1}ozլ+e:55I"Y9pMUk fJR6V]?ܻ<ų.v8kPWM21%΁Nyuc85GN"C?)2s+KrW񪪰: :py*̙ҬdzV%r- X"r=q!w1"*0?=U}hJ5ٛ٦vjDIPzeM=U5B?V0b\C v7 ӢXOm#{{{q2)%bNo>8$9!IYF힟 AFL.//Q&ZVQ8"w+U5&tO" &M*0^js.¶q[ͲZ';GɈ.dAMWU'j>?έɬg}䨙(ɏ?ܗ_U L5qƚTe5FrME۶mf65Mc<88'm=i}#CbW:֕'%3P9D+mԌvfՏG?zs+AtbLiqq' (7jU^޺nL_//N8WΡ \HכwITqS|qX$pԖe BCJbۓRuY7=Yw~8wȤiDʐhLy'`N 5Z6"iAclgwyPbhTc8|y;D sYE$e (+EΌQIm4t:-{9g@4{眛6MIЀk6H$䘞{۸H1DZ:G @b6ıh֊+~3S Emd$Ţ,[ۥқBm61&cS+" &M3zCTfkKl`53ws=Vl:ۡ"&lyT&+{D !y!p+[Dn*A$lN[m|M;m01h"D۶ X:r0CE d99xn궨-g4"QDddN/{M;J!0:ɡR +W|zzU/ YkڶVC 9eDɢ0M>"Uiu79@*ZSyef\7Ī bL0,.hnS׭ӀYz1Gmػ aKK 2q{W9^kR >K7e_gS `FXG/=4pdL6JmmL)qaPK",v>L7Չ>0 9n./^xyq $>T=LUDNN'IIn./.rxLiX9s!S>⧇^ 杉8S4h\VBCN(3fZ}\P3SZq4婪XoNf dؼgI*VUn!sl2ƛm?T<*"f5׫7S~' feZmr.:s05DmBQ>n%.ܲ _XfRJ1{/qΩ~1TfFKh꽫oF>LaSH8J6F3Xy1 samWfCaж") D*0[0a"rC”{٫k3iwvs'p裳뻿& Z޷}W}?;:w3}u1EDK!j~3eLqt\(Ll Zd&day=<;?;97@߲f1U7nt|~3afUJ} v儑MRQsT!ySb\E,r4& %,۶1^-Wy6 o DM3av諮[GXVrcߣs"Dlp9Y"LI}Vom`V:1ePǂd8 d&4b#V$@*rɎ9X<s;n$9u΃wJD"*$}'VCU,@hH]1Mi f^/lДRLhA u~zRBm)퉈ϮBdFF_/k7U@(ysfєTrlLTöm8td):͜t%PXLU B:/,@ Rtg$*ztggg3+pU [3_Ǥ%*Kf2qgGUkps 4@$;qTkwPYƁň] p-麮vsqO9gfMލ)9+ĘE>(=3>0m|;nWxu~u-lN]1Hw]q44?O 7]~;* #cI:1$$kx?rj WgN 9ê{*j3yEuFι4r9i9c4"5T&؏C$1O݋<80135\šɁHT!*HbIzf;t1cBLEM!Jaѭ[4mjjqN,hiN&},䨒LʐSDAPS4%0X{vs58UU5M]]\\:PH8_sĮ\HV(x_!p޳wX&qMDI *k%o&m![Qef]4;Yᭈ^5xmɥ 1,KU,"}Sͦ z%S8.] (fD)DcsTՊc?_Rf E-P]ߌQ=#i6%D@4&3#.mhg)kE^۰(o$.qٺ–OVw55%\4S3 Us7^Eّ‘b#<#a4؅DƒW%>>;,V~+U(̻`orjE$  %Odn8`kZ{B!-ڐ!E핈A30 c&hI#< B`Ij B4%ON^)ZVU!uFF@hD(Y.r@`F ӤF:3$)8we]!YBlrwq%9rf38YwZBIqUm܃6G痥D=6{plJP=*!u[&P7e-xQR= f|Z 7`S#zӫ*mfXN\60`# bfF,hhȌJXT Eގev3ƯsUWr--f݀ߩnȵmZDĞT$un,JyׄP"xCe)3$ۚBP ,&̐5n؎iJc弩`fB$]XKmhK^*C. hF dޯf:y7o?[Ϳuro='o+?E郷??Shw&aSAC|FȤfȇP޶D!KLbВBCvB,q],4aE"cWsT렞8'OQ' IDATSА0 㘠t|LT^͈dd1l4 8i+Ǒ 潹ZS6hg6c(fOXbUA̲i&ͪCԖyqq|UUm.oUP !B6E.Bi+Vy !ŔsVI*YP} 8`1cTBtS":^UlgLv հ^SJf ,#mYADdLX6G;ɄIBJ&\i3aT!gVD`"ᘓ%&}6[jGU$ۉs_NCTXRu׮G|r~?ϼ:vHB]ʡaD(bcko5M :ݝvfл*(C;RD{+Xd>t)b†i[z`fRp!4(8W/Ub'OO:IՈܢf朇ⰊCumbf&sY.;I.|R*g>sUE aQr?b_c#IM%TTtdH5AHWϞZShuPU׋alvooo2"*| `&3t;!\Uסu'&<h24T"M;m]7UEb)G&M2=kCR2QPUS3@1A c{c< +*ol)R6Δn8#~qo Bh+k,ƸO/-d)2]]*]~U|TPS|\鸒׻W:;;]Ghe~8/F;^m*iXز?٫5bNe9#OVν~OϮwh5=!"[9q궩κVʙVE`3/wꓓo|U_>0KCDsP5UXH#ҺbAyܻwp`;\T!atXSfR5A0>xw84,afs׀F9} 3Nt'Yi6D`zJ䓫Gr|qVX^_]\;dYs5`'P;΁'ccX%(PWWW| *Gd[b,vgB8>>IiLS־ 5dڤdywBcG1xPc: ׅX\8Fь2|4E,Eҧ$v ]@:8[e&J +׸7W%Ό\9 =B9CIͅRCx+v䃂OY%A> 2m }}*GBH"kzX>h=n====c'3lC,+D Y,Ȅ@$&a &ccvD4uJ)cu} 4MsʊG<5>yЎUKzxjq{`A' L}뭥)Ĭ`&NU V7obD@:]*8[`,[uHչA$BQ^kkmq[{PQG4圭83tpWsz|9[?>dP'K  gM!n6'ђrƜ3Kr{VD}UE<#I(c;V+|4 @2e0LCfu-I (+$frΥ01euЬaJ}huΐjyLHΝEDh[Z:$Tsn:s^hĪak޷͔/N5I( s ie:&]qcۡC0i&>E$gZkÖ -( "C;c-3"hqlNj)rC"+5#擜ul,q3x o W<-ˆ bf rx*BYLxvU$ִ55X7TP:}":&nT )"GUmw]UUmm(be& # (7Ɛ C5?kX""grSL}j{_pu$UtOxCAL[#*HN矯+]DjǑNNzJ d ^nm!Lnެ/K#-C +oz7!cRkZjEDA++K1]CU ">±ʌ!ŸQ<&b"dL}Vf~ZMJLri[[vwdp)AWchOф E#2Mq37lf,Yq\/"lR2F@b\+u?jET).ĒPᄊc51(8-NZDYrS[|.\ls#l$能[O_ !GE)Ni׶S}"bg8:k8[Zcmou5S ܐ{o=LZ9$XLN{KP1 {c}#⊚~ܢtmG֤x绖!"E9g2$EbTW," *PJڎ;'nK@ԮkU*O&핯Jsw캮Va'Qf;[:'!-9"0I̚3,Rm20 8̯;c-Td,a뛮i7:`АI[5!͢YD&wGGGɤilH㪫#rQ$B@!c 5 :T` `wMz.v|} 6Ӭ&瘱\JAG4PBc(2;Z<фy2$ZհH}+U}v@ `B.tiR+5+@ @ @DT, (`TKz;m!TR X̨5%PB BV5LȬaR!'y9$9vŇ5٤-/L:sҥoG} $py"L)*T mZku7@5iF)O\)C%U4pc6_#3!Bn" ">F "hQ@,%fk R9+a#ׂI {a｟WOk^;2dhH)0zqrX) AɩhNpY65ML< cMaFQDU}v"14Fnv0L"0.\J_xUMo*%6덳;Ⱦ$)u*GC쑄 b.!aׇG~]ڔ0V")#hɌdcBMC?`BJ#5:]kK ЄaTr@ybEIj+ ֨Ud .K"FsuGGG&w΅4xcAt"(J,IҖ1]qfuF}3n (ES)P 2acJ!jybFysoR[nQ䎑Xt?us[k/]AHH\$y7QU@ƉkdۗX,$9 j[$@m-[$^~W%U<#j"dR43p5Fӥ IuJXfT-k"yr5/3SD,IjfT(b5'U)%kn dZðQ,*@h ##3J-8});bm }bRT`2 piZ[65D:J1"!!9 `QJ[(r(!l;u1@'q".*((^UUv+v11;c[wx0&iR }2݄̘j RC:(5Ԙ7 /poC~[:ue[V59碂p6$ĄH\Ef򾎑j{qX"+]r(`1R0s3iMBX-cnh)\@s%%-kPR9 )Ђ}͵'ć0!e86M<ɤPBJ |iKIUao+VIBP"*K [JZ X.1[θqj"lVaPL*K*UӚq̈%2#(,GD Vy2IW Pm洝b+R \/iǶz5Վ&sVB2c%%&DA$fybEDsED6FV'g(D FF"X}5/x띩[doنPǔ-gCdi4Tld]  sRca&K_He6{}I4qڶ4nQT`*%'e ,~,X@ɰq=Oo-kj4k^hooẌFNl !fIYJ. "n 30(''*cà mC0\ p8Ol`9) 6ƨ:*ڐB̨d:e˞ BQ@P2Ad1uze;ltg"_J͂Nڈ*3[gK5čI><:[uƘp(lZ'# R2UQn)YE-Be 0)qL*JڝQ"8D-E% *dnj)dA0EKS0 Q-^fΗʢ},ͥi o*~ZWU8\-kNZmVRu?UkW#n `p*y/ l9ɥdoV-Qjَ;pȤ1K֓ƸUj]9Y`)ES@b! {ICI;28@x("`2V<4aL;Ƴۇh㦷ΌkrbrN<sif2Q&9]w79kۃ#3剪ƜabIg 8XW?7y2'e3v 愮$)'Rb2jisPZGj÷~e zֽ{XSCc/zKĶmiA=Gܢ1HlfꥱɁ\ ^0,Z#cZsNM 5 zg{PD%"vGUMw"*ArPp"O:Ƹ ˰\n_+dPPR1zc?Bu7RUcLӺ";MC...[ۚ 1/"̸Iu(~ro:УOx[7%N qƳ棴ְ>汷`ưɿ(g09qܠw{nƜZ<߈z<;;-X9:m]Ja& 8XKOcŬ?7ۧc}}>찿!7q*3ܲRʽdʴ۽I2xl(#.̲״կճEӅֈ!Ʊ;ᇽ7G$ܲ>ٴdn2&-Ͱ禱5>?épՋʰ>榲ɳ8,%!ǴܛRf8M3,s))ѧڱЗM޾4mJQ=8?-sh;W"˳i<(@$:5b2/]\qa"rl,ű#FA!* TʉͩB1 '{)ΦѳٳYzyن<5_a\:i IDAT޿cC Ȩ$߼uc=7q[zo~Z0BےssJƄhb5̑nLGˉljKPZ$b9ɳङt}}|6mF4Y5ܻWfY{E޺a~ :?~cB//xaQR3E׾].D 7x0gN?8y{Srj(gƶyd׍1j}B}i\~߿7Oߜ#p5,q5.^A!VwoҰJm/'}[aQ%Q&Ƈ߾M.]d|ub7ބ?g{-p-$1H) "HXΞai圛G%mR2$%B[Z9HYfE1ЇBQ 5Ԣb8N.8 E*-M(i ?1TG g*9*Vj%,S];=Em̉&ari݌d8- b1oe#"ȱH@$PFKHߤ+sV$U p`L^" P-ĀT*v("dYUH$0~7@K-HT -SE6ʊ * Jl'pl}J9笷 7q}+ng̍s@ ΝdN#1ק7hY~?}ٔ|էth\^wS3I6D!p8pӴ8|(?^<ئ0f (@&Yvч!5Ǐ7q3BXxGԘS6{7E󐆱R(Y5G赈zO57Vw/y^PER.1XJ#m@"J)7o3?NJN׾uc?PByr!>OYNcĐ!l68:?khvv.M;~H9 ~}~:W2mi۝?(ʸË}w>H/~,򬝶dZ؊轗c_!xn =xt\|Wߣizn-x*%BKr5=!qA?}gWt_{v2L=;/Nҩcd$oz8(D) Kc%E-PbNf*ؒef "!n*`%2 , TNjFD 9b"FM%8B"R%Um+)ǀJp @Fv>7nP?IwY^m#1q@T g]ҽ݁"B11@TTJ,v8˒ad<rvVZ-떇t) ڐTH@v StBƲխxf`DJ@"lz* %KI)I DQ%H \MUY!m"(hVc\!fy\]<0uM7?999< Bq}$2~\~>7^vƶbJ.bїs>=ŏ,Aճޒ,;=<;cX PGHXUo];;MreU0~[֛Th ǒB&g fLAiSLbRGjp&R@kDxeG)E+aF]\ݏ1rՏXzvմ(eLDulMȮPDô5T$Wv*❾kmkc1uSM=D%y" BԨHRa e[,<&t\rVE1SsT`$e,9dlHYC,)UuJ$%U%|֏w8WvPwa  2Ơ:6&&P*l cG( 1*-jz5x {P&Į]W>Ã짧5Ǐ9Bńw{""bͺMR}FRYk^w]W_>x-,Zn=ug>f`{\zSL'z5ƪA-&oShѲ^D e51[Օ2]Y_nvgǜ~vnY֒)q:N{YB I!e#S0No-񼏧u8+FMZO;62Fb P#b~ɩ(BNǘqL V'QA K7d fP,K]˳fPi&h&_Ua  ! 1fX8窮u^J:]@% !Yqt)[e-QF DCɪŁQ{ r,Wa^ &d~H-=ݚZ&R RU@LZZ<{()2Y6֘ =@"Ŗ '*D[0b2lGE (nl.vgMqpKL-)%XTl/z+l]v;BXpֶMCƬ"[dּUQ eҨE@Hc\Z)1fo{)dQ c;uͤu"2C0u(R7s-3ص_?\:<'Oi$)91t癘7Ⱥ _DVlJ}}$:↝3~14{˱o0WtND6Jւrڟ{PRfCgmXB))EMU f]W~; Un G׆*^@,lcWBԹنـ#nssZ?5XxX4Q!<]M7hoхe(Lw-~w7uO^2/cfn| Nr8G{o'/~^x_zᵏ}30NQ?U?9mhf].wU߾ǿ؛|䕏= eY.ax@DJ1Z P1H1(@ @NT{XT58Ae4nQ4[bd 4[z[hE0# +9J `}^ =%4hJQݕ|f# mwt:+]+ ќSv,Ĩe-PUlD.)j^bͦzSe"z5N7.ƫhل 0Yp aS2sӸFDH4\2R E9hm ƀs̪PY r153;gIAh&BfBDQ%t> cBz[x7k7m7Pxߦn`4ָ=X~ !Q<隋Sgkfh}4y\{=w S8;e=,] {qr5wS-晍B9p{DA0CNQoi^T `Xhη~_ZWn~ccѬm.:뵈Ԅm>沵?.ϕ˰;/O5U,&uy޲-ǫ7|_K'?>+3?Բױ?մ{۳Dzw?o6ܯ?ְ´ǿI8"Ӛt6װ(-ځ7+&1#梲8<+V%  C"t6rJlG}H^ɥ.ظB69ʺPvx5(*hҐa"FH+wMK^eP3Dd$D2 Tu ujU5!1hS{#AFRq@26)`gF)',1u&rMGSޚa)VU(b+90V[*w$ofU97M; $\Vю0rڝؼu"HC,gga(8RAa^4 |w,X?;ث[W~4O~f?oV^{7 {Q;W~~5ǧ xկ}ggxxwg>OX??v`[}33Lt>v΋{ܿ3_=X?F~}7?~t؟ qW^ze^Ζ]M&lDwt: Gf$_ 9Gg 7D`d 'CQDLԹ Vyp~3 Trب~j圻~`>}sWe (ED(gFVk.J2Ë4".JL|ZnZ{`1EE蓂 3ZsJՓv .Dl}d2RN/\=a0NBHl2F*)uUMRDsN% DgC*&0;bFR55c-$"QB(@ ZVq@;>4HU[2fC̀ͬM%2LͰav5rzZN~$_YZ71ցc)(M@D ;߹Nƴ1_L Fư?h`tU/K{OOL˞,כ5XKS*S8[|??? W?wA|ݼKO,nL4Z$VcQ386~qw|md=9,ny7-f{vڪWJRSIA 2#8b9c  1ƒAKMIU*Uik9g~sϻRj~眽so~_=(.Ayb# >/z/y}m3O>ٲ!$)7ȷɥ٬񺻳n穇<ɇoǞޛϿޛAˠvOyc/'O?uڋ{8 >$"82w㕿bo#ˆOM̕~ϻ}n0Xڨm ;WΞ܎]7;0['z_W+S99|B?M'ՠp™3g|r)W/]tʕ3'[%\9(1)J 55dZ&}Mpx;M&fFjB qc!!aUBp]kT9TX@+ʸj}U\Ñ/ @ ɀc?!Ru;ѡYcxRJ}W!1 @" 0FU??{z[[ҟ'U ׊ IDATSᡧ'7 u}uu^=5\j_l񵩶>TaU3ƵCP,gOy|ٷ=X|bgO=|x5͍t V7ӷosI69xޛ#>୷ 1ƵR }w]_sc*hi jfVji\J@Q²+s0HDȼ6 hD9cɫ$[> G.%T Y-Gث朋l }r(Llf6;bfv#nB ,úA ,bQe D nhG(LƩHi1_椨H1F6PX8'QUT4U@@fF[13#UTDcth ("!֔F9@jl@|203T(*+$51FC>!-8o.ܹ೦^4ٶ"U=s]jا?eLs읲,xഥ9<_=p}k|ο3 3A*!1;\XqB\;ȋz~6cቓG/_鬩iNקz] KWU6w|[E|vfmcVcS ]O̊['~uZr-R;=t/~O/ʗ~~wgW;o|@xCS>K;[_|Mr;`5w[qS2ou7 l@~{(?\뗮Ńy=_{`k\aI 8[AmP)nփԉgO>Ίy_koo{7g}/I&ú{q>sy8yJb0VP-xǛ+_zG׉oHE_Έ (wE7S' 2 yo)AjXx;("&%' UhrdD6ucS "Ct'e9;P*Yߗ;x05:6^]ǎLhEWxR~_ǓS%l%6P(*YTjfI\.'` j:y|24w)e2YʂIF,[%v{- (,b^.E֌d},)ɠ|aٌI$. Gz'7 :"pv .D&ۧO?dC </kO.+WoWt$r!2=?v1/nԉ/=?{hܵ{@B1SEpU*?W/|jMU;w]6y.[k+p=@N IU}?O< {_~~o P08عB"Hޅ"'Z/MֵvN/=뗿=o}wxM+k's~>S@0@gpf4GԽ]tal .CzL`r=UߺkڮܼbphO** IKwmJ]'||w]wSriօ+:m8 &]ٹv"^6ms9;ԓߜG^{N:5Sb6gg @os,1! 1cF.~)ZAgXTUUQCGwzY<:fv`&hqrQ51d/I+JQ´J,@+(兄q٬gUXT+blcRJ>Fǫx;f˳m/Ch!!:M8$"2}L]Ι*4[NRM-5Fr.0DtK iHƜ%Lٓгf&LMAFU5gٕjCcV0kdCaY <;쳘iXm1(i}ŏ<_?{Cug?l5`P{oK'Nk׮'ß|i2+O߼O>T{ vbmܸ<8Ņn{O>X.̤!8ǒUrEM~on_y慡o[^s˧>Yēy| ^O6ך3FfL;*gP5w1ŅlWv(#O>6ry]~>91xv샛 k)$lHϷ{M╝r??K޾~moxh׼<իoQ1J M  ngo|̟Ǟ>ŷ@yyMFik 2Sfènr^t -?G}o뎋W<]ܠpjΰa2u-]bw{r~ki{.Ͻx/㼽gnxgq0>tuakmwۧms׫aWιw>={gK[/"9fQ)M΀hƜK1TC32jhjp| x~ &Cq[X`B1%ɽ.ѪعUD3GR;Te*Lr.%͐DfPEQ,2"*ꪢ_"v}#qr(W54&bT@U>VEgk"H" SQ)-`-aՊ(!Xr\^8G:eFE%%sAbdgϝ)!ҎfJlKWfZ򕗧%f ލ\Y rc3rM/frS<9 TIj<:?lε+}ח܋\szÍU]Ҝ"۟wMkwsw|Caw B?<9BŀLr2cшSJۓ/ϭ?⁧}ܭO<Л^Z}BXo{"Buu/2o|ŇsݙB(b䝇apZx .=/ڕ?m􉓷ts`k@۪j\9eɰ_v7]L k[w}ԇ=0 /T{p{^ݩX,(@3 "'{=/w9u;o}ogogmm\zśO Bvg: '_]]?ѰoWN ҅N;^#=O8ͳ=>{-7-g}v-Zͧ.Ƿ+, eq4У;kfkkm3g@UU8P.t:.8jƶm5YS@$6cbaʲ8^ؕyXתSS>5\9'bκǧ݌/ٷ-<"*J׾U.G;ˤg0 2SՔUx,pO""|橇qYtx8>o|[󕯾;cRVU#sCZ͟yKu~:^>~߻{^ju=5h$&VpDW}777]>_>io8ΌW^WD@u8\t]@m@'nbۮa2:Զm^k4uӹOԔ-e6)n1Ge뺮)xD̦,1$P1;9jM PyYj*G28KͰ!k-r=qp>Wlnէ3Ϲ:gj&I\cә;9 /|OQʼA躮mۂ?WwWxlFa0 5bcncXMAIEB=u-n >i-Xa kF^{z<Ǟ])upr۫*'S['ڶ5i`X@4i_M 1QG@[%Ov4 }߯"hmbYT#yvTD7r㡜|rRGa E\f6 뺘RlUe8*gDlkfL}w" * U۶L˧phզ]SUy sŬh 80@l>lp>S٦Ǚ<əB!3O&)@UM"$dj0Ѵk&ӯ]y b!QM&{|jƱvmA$-bקL]?/8A ko~ s\o>}[n{Z=@[[SŔH `PR^hk^کơ{nyMgϫj}Qʑ&CRƙi mp8޶zYo.nIin6OhS䁝S0bquz'I.63 f!Z6:d^ Ĥ&E351\CXOH;aV:8IW׶Z4'Bfj:b]ʋ$ITT'ɣɸ%u}4 ksCU (|SXB*Kˊ" hyFuLbQ`fXzĜ\fedfZ7NY \css7. iRJΨO9gEpflr*4/C]׵@Gmb."Zj2s%"AWs)(>[ z$S*g<^;ԖWԾRf::gL䆯o(t$-}k[ wX2eT'G8x4pCt h1Uɺ#p˜s92b-RuWDـ%?`AC Iϕ@v"Z(E))y$\!E>e5`Jvfp G))X$EO}bffrwiMwK:pb4Adb9 28㭀L)-ecxu$ԃk6UY5HE0Rj Fo-g/d7Cy כXT@cE~+_o.ܽv&ߝNM7H9aQ9 7yE`"I}xmRD TA 꺩u"B==d* 2yfيk#*%2M_7%i. ь dP + NȨRTD(s;G|ޱS$4TydrMc琸S@QUUa.D·cB-g)c6p GHxUUnX7 MS6tTyay-΍9 X2jo)ЪRH^bbHHC7"nvXI2K')gfvb(A$vm.@IRIW*bO\-%=WYWWzj.L?,A)D|Hz iŢi5AX0?^_|"`f ΍&c=r\n<9)Ƙ&'zє F2"4 d41SST9Vpr}Ǝ*I1DRҜ4bdX(9}61锏ړhUSJ`հ 8X21ef4_tK 0ם2DŜ/,bkacVp+3c_l,ynԓgv@)*eERBbemأMPE*bv)uy~4V)f;Exm$dz=tO]S)w8H,·0&4o gNڹr&۩/s1J{jSSQ50Bc4 h+L3{UsqJ)M!-l)9D3KY0+|'fDl̻)UEDe1֙ŖAa;O)`̚e:rFM̴r^\ ٮJaz0AsxS `.x)d:f)!@n(15-hsT+ҜDLD`}"1=*u=8lPms%1nff`-UU]gsړ 8Ȧo8@cɠ)׹4G,<,HSv&*8/b9+a2!$UP#B&2h IDAT3P[ɓ,2Ƙ sp  \H IXDK %oU"b>[r$. %I*z!Hh@ɲC.v59Y<+R*@b& P)Mm7wZr8:G;H c$e k.P, `2`1T"Wb2!HeOSqQ%CXrCޘ&A 0tNXr(<'JUDqŞ$WY*4 }[C&]UUyfm${vuUx* @@  UWL;dP.-VFG+Dv|Nt@H6u1|L0",ӝ6bL9 ( E(G29"!L#@G@,(+ǞjD*@<H9ƜsU;dT!̋n6?8\ &N%g0OBހ Ǡ UJſKtY(-; u) 2Ը۽1^\R@Bp[GB׍SPLMr-fT#!DD&*a8 d4#0 Ģf04UUC `HX9dUf}VtG4Q>>fLQmfˢ@m}2R,H Mֻ|q04 !*T0f3fS@@ 28@ԊsqDI2t}0i&2[W6kZn;D_ .bR)d2z5.-4tL$E5qQhLr,rٰ ɐdv^(m.B,Cfs' X&"e<\)U5T>(vE$g@N\U Ќ`fRuWY*']evLCmےz$F"jzPP%&tCWaűs8(xD,SꪺX,B(  {Y2ҒRK @s̄@fh"(+#xpеGdV1v!VnV3brsPI&9#IZ4g͹xI#ﲙ]B32$ C]gYY/$2 grD=Z'i.\Ri4[m@z+kn>DCPJ곡QoAg2ۜ>kjfhpnP+Xed=:hQDgUDɐ'~T1Ӄ5 u3_-8Us<4xRR+׌e01*f_3th RPqF\PU'೥:hTMQ DV2|ID\{M^pƦƜzլˑ_H2{Ȃ3 .ddYhȬ= "&2R0_%MCj""!2ǽHqms$GtT&cUnU~Й:U5is7 xfVnd<6 ,`ZֲJ̩٪Y i9 q^a/G12hM3.${ *D!p8gd4"Sl-z4Y۪˴O?TUemdūbv#i!OFWPir*8|>?qt jXm3gp },j K%']Q fh6*ΦalOX˽$!Vkf9E$aO]׶9AD \U͚Kh JRUU5%(b/"Ex_0[Uq37ǮVcFP83v]A]Bvq?ƛz5H`-r$:&(q,#ԾFiTqo]>mR`A2ױAk&Ƨ4C-:4 2;+)Z!vpZZN@>,鳾ՆO8:<3f ͱAEa>%gƤ1k3Z04b0@L>ff`gј)1KЈkFQ4ةB*u]BeKWˇȍH!d $d@u*:l .@ZlA,1#1dosΆFs4w|>WTZe?&` 1fy{ݨ*2SM1wuX)w=16Y%4 `dpeD$rgTqPf*+v%ȲAʐL,t^2WpxfZE%jf1.ܒ K -#NfVu^UA, 2iHJV'>CwU W+:"?:6ZFȐyD!";B-E{5cjV0g⮤ZX_YԇZnLg窔9˒6)DEѐ{^y;+ל1a`WUDU9+!!YٚS^*$1"J'"U>v .$b-b(uɭ"o^Ŋ"$)EIf/N̼y`'`6= 6_/co5[z}sN xo5tV8r8Lf, Bm+ x-'1"`lfRwKjzTUgxwoUuGǷnUߩsy~|l#ZpJ^i$gj==o;U妪(jy\z;=o rIeg_{v7b#3,j\vVwQ3Wne2qb,YAs4 U+>C/):&B`ĊL MP;6[ȖҰ !Q (f123ZfMò] +WiU-"YU~i(Dn=Fzpl#j"`J_8w$j`a#1`f,e'/c@U1 )H"ROș%^T ?^_Р u(ccw;h00DsU21M)9xy)) :w֋Yf0ZH }Q~[~ozwn=|q[/,"zPӔ{@3bnkorSѸVG9gH/D^sYUY,9y^|]DHނeU-I&gF;<031#"d,94 ((8hhBDXo"RʩXsk{\%]D<"ipRcfV5*J1YȡC`Zrn C,k)(V[K|#{ "6BD`VAvXN*p/nJM]%AO?J0zFFU\3 !jl5y("*O pFiBk- pePRI2 z1j僚9ˢd(@قJYЪ u6tY#C*jf43CBO  :$P<1+gk!:*8WGuco.-x2>Y~:;v/$uP ڑ4:Ȑ@|gs0 ]w8Gf[nE?)A )!UЍHuIBsx[d{:ɦ)gDLĎ"CF5|i,~b`rHto :C\ڜy) 1LTCJCYS01!T~tU,{V|] ,j Da 6+i"@el*kL:8e$D+B}D,WJ e5ܼv6gLTF%TtTRvֵ҄CzO7(]Y~`sYE@ĆoނZ3"b{Cު n-olVQQ*N5Q<7*FtX/.K)"QQ Ab@mbؙ ͘e39:3TU#v!8HNgºZ1lHĥyGQVE֑ ~hfVVffu%}+'J9@ق[-)#n),O4h%G~kY<f0PrO* RwfT0:4?&55Q0ȴZV5s bP|:PB,d[sS"2H1ALcYD\)۟ŗ>MYB@!`p j{ )x2Mq=-BtJ\n>j^9[y]x履;%,E5bCzpVTstݢ1lDD 8Dr5!F59%0,52-'|pqHRD$2)騩bJ"IU1{3Y Rױ I.QRt~*FЈ%:0a%"(Q9gM5(zω!(#zv|Y!F0SA1D8 h.u/ `jJ`ZhW':bSGNEUfd-&E_WHZ-G^sY\ݦ~ݭ +C n$Ǯ7MvZ]MP̞GS3FTowXY0&+En`捜) =p PI4kʵ3/% 9Z)"(*x8e#dDO]bQU +@V)W΋#cVH6cIY%,@sFPdӄ ?UUUQ(u?"/aJ N$Hѩzb;4E6gGwFQHb-;LqvrO0wCOC(Нrc('.s`ٕ<9&&U5#!bpI(D4qN5C2U4 qY0IM.OhRc,2Vڕ߆?gazrǭ7n[u1dD/9IѸ(!Ʒ?NյԷ7.x<?4KhY*1>sN0 [h6rbjea},*gb%ŧ ԩ;L[:(/^qľ MUYuQ32GqJ= c&Ps j6c:%Ìjhq,Q'l2H 8~!\X5HdbD@A,!lP=U[~HHkiY  ,Kffu](WXt/.z)Z CUlt IDATG~v]WևB+G"~t-WlظmH &g۷cXKǁ4w PM)EK1jʎ*GcCĽfQ-̣#vċ-3'F(0{7GEu4b 8Jj4Hv5>Գ1m6ސHй!.2͵Y9!公:(차2'ܥ|Wg{µ`bP͔p lU'løqsgo/i=wK/=>]ej?>+'ڇ77q&c\yxa\x/mzk͓U֙ȽTä:xe `v\7MN%d` n<꺎L% "omtyGZT<6Yի 4<1vGǀd.,fy!zjU^NECBR&bf޴[}9hԄ r~ܔ۵/eCd=7a{Uf0Γ|5mFh>Ұn[KNY9UkC7'@fvYD+CJl)$"}1dޅjv2lhg/u]A'sBdf.i- y|]!Q%溮kn{뺵-뫚#ιP!"! Cv);-ҟs-u\tybITnyz)R#Z ɀfr2tzD5Hgk|΁+0ni{1vKYȡwڵku]O]fN)u]7)͏o}OxaQa3ff <=<<+k/t ohzmOs* a|];_ٜ;ίopUd> 8!zSbqcUUf6;>Y㼛sM%I}d% ;S, NwbxsM@ ŖFFL{τ1Ix1/FľvU@oxz@^̒Dh$h&"s i k>:r+ !IyH M@ :DSBP$MdQY9C^npz=\'^&Age$%(83AU _ƫR|))r8ECYR +רUғ˷BM&>u{)h#:׮, CJĔܣ6i^v b$3G3aHfB`@G Yx<--XtÐ9L-K-*jQ@MՒAoߐ[![NEdwgt=EP*ue68TFWW]u3363bbmy\5!frysfg 4r7TU# L\-րh]"yvU؟035Ylw!9ڳ%}x޾y۾q}r"ն|vg=RN.k=p]gǷN퓾0G" {oi0 5T!@@2䣶]wYqq3TseOx6 C(be-V$4b)kPV3 ƨ`C08+eELU<{U1hٮ4ÜE,2bt>ƘhZW  (8 9"9Oe TAde/m*б:3<Wf< WjX5\'l56e.HLd&B;+8-|[]וn ><&G@@o|!2Uu.MJ +ҩxen>o RL&ھ/޳ͻ~4H%ۧJ$f&<38RݏF-Um۶/z|pscӲ˝_3l2*Q Qmл!r̲h] dsU,s,#ݡE7  rD $el@nA`!ԺA3U-ݸ.YU}xO?OwW~zdUp/} xS83t͒9c}SSsO]'|w?έsfWy->47{_4unT~G>ږpwn oOwO}ܣc,HfYA\Ӱ ٓ (h5?4n_^pΥ!'pk+CJyq@+toȈn<,yVb %[U"93Efty_Fyչ>EI9jUpΧb˳2jS0eTFUD.QY"5KZ @YVKJdmEeK1"YMDM-!ebVR81wqg(KvhY j8 ih\ \]m|KfT"bFC]C89\?sݛ|>ߜ67{,L; r P=v6Zp`]"¾e&1rF2eT)ԝtr"@@\`r\>קe U<&] y龖@a =m+ou,=7s 'GNj@r"q3o5b.s\ )D crrZd1*u]gHqFUR?]Z3`I OYӪ&"6,ZO~Ϻ'7??Ol;6i-dg??$7=|Wgg_U}_߼S?m3|#+Kڿ׿[S~?_z_{ǻ_vGu۾]~~~M_'?G~KI5W_oO~o~mwwOwWd:KM 4Df:Hz KiZcpѕsR~*`E2sJ Xiv\e5i0O\9_1aV2`Ip:D j*NlHP\<eQ5nU.P!EAK@`cN 4tmtU#QIJ!4b&-S<8GojsgPD]"L@,bFY+ĤEʖMA$ZQZcCf5K)(0 & pLLTƸr=+šY,`MaQ #*W#$4-\D]ιT^q5_Cf+&AgV)h2F"u,´n+(1JJ]l0?)sRb4eMu(I(9$t|^Z¿u}vn>a`a6Kh,c6)lѵkHϵ~h>)TUb3ej5[I%3(rMi8=>PG}ˆwv^R9#(aŔn\7˜@;8™yw^/߸ k]ux4S6ߏ?۽8 &SWO}'v|ɫ/ܿoy{~=ng?o~ǕW_]/>}y"7>?~3gȥ^_xxt惟,k{K xW]9[ 8"r8\!92 eEUWȀh$Z_*Ùcŋ11+d˅/+s ,KMCT4)Hbh*@# cVK"I$g{_}1lI8kf-[S|ŽE$cUTsayB0Mi|z /0c4iB!3Ҽk "mqX~'uGB(PVβDT(bVA!2&sXS1fISh<{%켯G#K߼B@yoDSFu4 y]c1IʡrͨQba+!}}ϕ_"Q$Xα [5B^L7 %2bΛ3$@G# }OQDVND4LYa01&nH)/qU5ڎ}Nf4(흊1C܎:8kh] TJ ȅWZV__vF+O|?Чû~_zkr?~VG.} /ʣO<?}Yr=?_y{g?p+}?;ogۏ]]ܾgx~'g^z9^k_<3wWK7^}Ͽ`HUgϾp3.&dP<0jm;g(Kt,y4PML ,Ѽʊ(9J BpF4dN$d`b=E}.ZCN}ԄfmKoAlFS3Ӕ%&B zK Vk"qi8G;[OUQy'Ȅ@ط{Oj).c"}39j!+D흪]]fI%wWDAn|U@"/CH[j! P+K"*F(mVf$"6^5~5=+VIK禦;CDZtlL3kiJBvS!գ[BSO˼7Dm'bћd2' 'BS|V3vQSaYD\ma4-g~DI~:mqc6+"xnuw؋jʹE-,Xr$͓qŶ4x4xkQ @#t˞V`&'ǧ1%*n#bR8@Ħ%a~ݯ]9c|}}CK妡.O/=Fcon?>ʧq?AN~~.yө֠z3G~?oܳoڗ/G⶞gw6;x׿3{Ww~ح\{pgL^ƻ>:>v_?_{m__yS^:[ xr?kVMƻۃV]_j@ Z4'[S _{16>PuG;DAY;1;F3$ԣj|Hd,dj@4;vsWvuUumNR59n9 Lm&=HIcߚFW;^0[tfCȍC26!I|siEm]Fn)"腣+ ed Dv1^cՎ&>ǘA Uc1b,3H=ڲUi`m sIƣE̓ahYЧ$h4jgk+!"bYI}gdE`Gs\+4,"hz=) i$$ x@bht:-bU vwJJ?%]5RTU%92㬖DuUH9SkZE1\*lS3LQapf=yb <1b<#U;@&]:=vQ},fF d4@8ADMyzFkY$+ٹR1xڛ8Y9qI%P=O)!"ĜƼvS4THcjƑ#VrԔw}]yQ7-^練^xoWOG~g}^~sƟ:4[GWuM|ݼ~cj<5c_G??37Gί{?}=g+<{>룰?ªɻӰ?'ٵ酗v칰ͽɰ>赿bܰL紥ěʈ5j3鳧e܅0q,9͠h!+i˱U#2YZ9ɷɽ1i!Ė!B2ϰɧŹ)!ʄꀘ3?<432p(/i˧Ag'GG` ]l"*$6DoXu@lgsXh5Xٙm,1*(YDd6&KhanR>1lKaCBK^I-xaB~ z-#[** nz&N֏r0c5.;M(#rĞď!*|ep~$l%x}9AhC&SU҉ZD4S5ЕLY,C(ڧ\933$bs ya|7u5 bO@s>= I8* 3#8=lOLAE8'%FT @#K IDAT8,!"1c*)RU+Hr̠F-6&%T0dv#rAԓz6dvqb"4I^ I&*!>.ۧFe4! #pL;ai |䳟9||_}ݜ}ߏ0/}n=ƣd]NS> v7ﯞ쌶׎߾zp?v0_|}m8}9yo'O}wuw瞗v~eoQmW>p>˝~͓{=2;wkZeE5ƥT;J^ jcTs_yvqNitsbFˍBXPVuEו/+TDr1EƔdf:l~|Ҷm7}$ `L*r0sf)웪v TWtGٯv4ÅǮYz0z6|u+]UUN:㤬h4(Wވ  75.CTs59GLL!I( @sgժh:lRVfT.\Gs┘a50вRkhe@Q[-2:\yBB_ME1X20 " j8_?~/˟ٟ_۷~_,y|O|'/ݾ/]q:oo?ݧ? ЋGۓտՋF~MrO?u9/?o}W{Tvڹ'H9IfmV'5Kn`Baq8rUngջk3GYCuq>?<1y9r ԭ6$X!V_ ˤI5MSA IV$L)pp" [tL% u"s cDH qx3/? k؀Zǥ#`==ەU<drtB$F(U ic./D#6kuBfvp_e܈k6:N-F01EC16>}xg+\  N@ni|`:pQygIIᛱZJ.XJ)%*sm!6ZOyumڪËF޿x&sH4uvN aHC[~[kbBH%;D /U1?0}("͝sJ 6^“zn9\W7Ed)ΨMWp p`뺞ϽAD_|k q 3O s2S"@GpCwt4^IB ;Ʌ$ վBSBLcLY\pٯ]uՖe*YҌ<5ND,Ȃ)`! p$=(&BX:w7?j &+"n@ 9(ݑfcTcR?~o?QW7_? ZϿ=[vy > s;L?᧧o?_=G|OOg%&>;6r!:Xj]ݝ?ݏޭuؔ- @yLuވSʹW7,SUsbS0s򴟥y=i$A@&ޕ kgyxx"F5~o]kłGP@5b&&p\1v0ZGwdZdH BH0dz\J1b& a#oF" ib4rl:N"š)'H\GRW?peYnnn3+nk%"}f:i.L4dF=dG%UωHÂ.v´L 塒$J&MX^oRS!dXN{H\("2@3u]L9Ǔ$@D 1R]BBI;cw퇷S~"?3pG"/?&"Co~a=N]JJy*o@=>{ ]Z}S>47y˿Ovw_u_6͛7?dol~?~\3g~/vO'?_KkQJ o~|q=`IW}w?}ן~w߼pS޾ի~O}!d `Lc|0呅&O׊4{'|Ms=]zA|i0lTroUDFiH!9Exn#~i90)#ʎѻFWX;u~.s(7_~y7Rʲ,4D fú/LFpgQ {`:t`̳k?|kn7n ~7u]{o'"~9HǒӁ<<߼9ǥejH0G}^穄wA,y=<<]a@DF6aBb~܆;ޘ97>pfQ[ݔۜ2a W'/=|mmz3 @Sw~PrRm<@`f›v@DGHAͬET׶VBd@!)woފTf ¯.J0kWʸЌHeZC..3ed asׄ)c@2f:w}jDil,ə WEsQDZLzkj48 0MB8q"LBA(@ Ƀ bSf^ZWGPhm8p]O9,6aN̒33? fsw3u@p?Zzsb<S073"^`0#RR)U }yY&g#Z.{]V՘93jd»%3%d`uǺ6`H>%d p7ftډĈ)R ! 4njKlqssppѵ7TĐI5q"q=?s/k7nEH|F'ՊMi2&D"z%VV Sv8\TUF(ѵ[ q *Quh;7i, ! tŒ6N$dnAX .$bfs&A{R #dsЮ=B-R2@"Q8PP\JDAkc~NL\tcR5^˲,GD {Dn Naִ{WoVۘ*JgF29 3]q6Jq ,F!rܘ}{IOD4SrDq]MI-L% )|lV" @^ݿ/u=@2v9g[jRJ̹ǏǑ ڗyN%uN",LM],=!; rJ,"9̜ AhѷF%)vO!$" چH5h܍ 4@=$"h T!iaGAxoa;z7w@4BX/vӥj) | Iݭ2Bsuu,"˲޵ГR640fA X"zͷ91s7 @)ks$$~k# zbN"vZֱaZk6-!TR.e‹"ѵ ϙH֖u]Z%t.ǑZU֌jv+W,c̤híj0p*pʌT='p<Z.9iɌ ;#:Zem!nqM Hs ª}*5 r' i%wL^xu Fb{<ݏZց)OkS;q>yFQ}؇" Pb@SoM blvWYmZ[Ԯy9}.bHDTJZ8"clێښԛ[xաHPE{Љc T S$JBөN֬8 }u|Ò ٘RX뱫.CJixgF=LLN :œ5 yDknDojmf׬tkjfAfN)}X2ƀn Ά"ԸY0C`$yQ;Z %M9"jDSU:(XX` 0W_Ed#};3%MWj%!0a*`i]3ˇFM]k[Zwi 7W 5f! f3hphG:N{oֺ0 Bfv`6:ppŕ%^3^o.oBD@`Rl a 2VњuKgK2/yB;zss^…<@K4r˲|||ô*'a $i:,\J"Cߌy:-8)xwDFJ־.mU.r UAc\ O,VF SISMxҶqCtScmкڴz:iڒ,jpNIPE^O22wL%z-xbfQU g70E"4vB .5!&C1e'D#_\[ko}h1RD~ݵ{a z`hWx {k_=DD5kHIم>B(6Y^%j2KFnM Ԗv~b<̒ɂXıW@݉u?;I`5-1nz`vI,ȡJ3iQ eOzF\^ycwt3Zum22ڻLe4M6^Íf.c޻~ 7˲OO빻T0O_ GJT>ܭb?ʳ洇ŋ|==cc0ۛߨe(яu~Ժ'9<ϒ|懒oly:&22P?hDQff 43>{e.ɛ ֞<᮴Lb.Z,ot=cpD==ŋۛͷu@fׅDD3IDdb`.׵ֵG S97oJ)<%Ɉlë;2-$-w?6e7ACs[w4۷oe>>==5i7⹭.%,Kn2P7/>yE{i]הͻo?XdwspOko)yy B2PaI)9mR)`5ͱ4#M)DW/DTx4j3[]fJ(ZMܞx MPU?.1岟)e4t޽~9٠o#?ꮜqUu5GF.,!ڵ&c5ݸj;]E|("0-mrgCU8SLQsJ#Y]H32 rJ9<pIH K0޵w[#$Y\eJ1i&%źuY˙1D"a]{sfiyQ[\DGn">ٰ9s"2)ƴ%ݴ=38Ճ犁)=˗<{ľZ,J˿6v C"k`3q!0rIEZ8eWmDDpYXDL4M89Pfb1VyC oI[p a *R٬zy AJ wPO,aae,rdXWm̬{F as.gSڀĂMkmmu=֊<*J̒Ӵy~\f*lv:=ZI0Mdn!R92 Zk'ݸ%WG,%vmGؐY=Ժ3^{w%#!!6'R0Auh՝:asJ>S&mWb?cFD[k@W w$43()8Q(Z<>r)W߹ѧыPI򊡍pb΢ќ, "TǸr;8ܹ85qh0 p䋚SJS.\$6 d$~}}'w 1x̨AޅCWmyWqpr}+XnjF/>}ZIdJ9 |֦>߱j@DÁ\d1]7yw5 YDݻvp3o]wZ4$lBW֭4޻AЮPN4[Q{t\;k3,2Ws.)b$B,Ci,-]j\1 nMUdJ)gΒ8I@3Q, a,9LW(5lӖn̨H7Sl؉:hDZժ#:b"pHEWMWWvM?0eBi wfpWSI`e>"rS]|qhsO9Fjf+?[Y[6FDg'$9SL)U !LTuqϪmE(z[x|"SN)9&Ok;7pүw~v5jH2"baJL̀zBg;΄t>pGv77b4\Fy^ byKow , eJbI")#" FRN۩Κ}'#9DnXG`h!gޮ4(!T"yuhˣ.j;{tfPPd&&Fn;u[YEW7;]p*;aFn0df) Ы+'7kuo{z\N!Q+eHؠ$@ u[idQ`l&z xr @EkWkizB0zaww-c',RBV@@6-$CQ@FWWb߹{nMd!dD\Zpe o}a@Dh4 uPFDcM-2qy?M؅:6üC\cP1 eyV7`"Av3;@%𪝅ƽؿŽhP$ e @sGp&wvsCƍZk̻) @sN3r-J2ē xڢ8lZM=*; @fnZֻ?CQe>3g&@>D_;U 1]sXݑJĀiܼ$E$"%^D{.vcrv|4ݒ*ȆTǦMX;JL:th7!0 !pDnY~[L쉑pb.ww{wfqhu;-QW!BADޟL,L-A,,~n!]a@SIa-̭+3ӦUn`xF 8Zs5ĭ5l&RBJOCޣt'u8L3xi簨%$S$1Ԁ"!ׅz(!ڍ´)1*<SQj|nuŸo@ð4 H)4H!Ӵt#-F)rTbs:E4$(Ǔ|*rGPűRR(F=a /65DP#>7,8p? *D\z*P! 49)%BHTVJƥ p$DOq$kEp)8*x4M_)r~", $%J),:+ !AbKaLRJݢB@* 91B*IOƤx*!G e &ՈF=Ǔ>T@J `H"!fi%H s BEŚzJ$b!iBg T@B@EPK aK_$Aaţ%=3 RBBbJql8(!2)$WB)׳N_75^"8~]-"ȀR* ZLܾ]j*(XZ;XXzHVp~ CH1Jr`& WJ)TO0 !@QI%B,9JB+9g (910}&c\( Ac!4RJ B( -YE4@)!`\5$e KiiCS* \۫7J] iF,1F"RH& `6-q@"h]/(@(PH)CFƋRxҊ 9Iw=xD C ΄a{P6|W"7P-dZ JaPiB&!JH% |]\$jP)!c ɸ@%c$UXA 1s_* j-AXf]Q>R`@4(BJ&6ԃD)THBRLQ3 Vjpe1P#T)8# b (hU|і!!8EP3# 4(vp\\0>SJ CX*. 28uhJ8!JQ3ƾ+5 ).0_(%h08Xp-3BR0AǏvC \u9H øĘ*jy18x:Qp%uwq %Tk"M!'b1 , hq} u  a $gL1.W< nc|i64djBkJ@\pq! 0)᜛yNcZܥ.LŒr8Bܦm۶"qʑ׆1J )R bp@H}?0D"Hiq` $Řr_Z ΟCHF(ĆffİDBBJ!h4DnATL2B@" jD"!4Z=364e"h)`1EƮ}{eJt`iXZԈDH'kYDBJ!X T*Ó#ZpLO'ZpŪtlt.QzgV #zҬ'R B &cZ[=EvĤf\D6WmX 6*\=!](afvӷv HY5\a,mmr>Ꝟ,뒹HJ Wo95]R]Ktvx#--2 hKʠ82Jp͂i7W fFlryZYyU[lkp2`C/ IDATYiy4کB2KjgjOO#&'lAXC a s]krhpvj%TjFIW6Eq>kHCAjH2:%ZٴR%NZ4iH_tT ϬY]f5mf12*l'9X{ǁ6v6phDoX!?S;2޵jݫ7oD OD,420<`r @bio@Vx!_Jph&2,͢r$ D4)XGڷ)+*9d.![w;:zӖnhX ?9l~ aܜ{\wI$ɺkx<P`':7^ˮ^֫mt]HӠj0ɤMS3秧[cqp<>G9.LQ(E>w d"I|kZʷw9u˔G'P%S&+KOejp/s(7+5(TXZ!Q IuiC1T:1ҙnӮeP01CԌ#L tӴL4H` " D7\A&*(d.>WBA @Ej3/HB !ӳ\0"9P! `a @ H a .ǃԢ>?b)X: ;ͺFh,,9pJOs!6XūJ5;fĬj`Osf[WWRu=w!&(5j]g2%@}qFS N+us)岩lUdǧoF/O<)RG; ^qX<ΜtyCeC!DB _Z-x%c|)%ҌA_]< \婥,5cG`.RJ V@' x BEBPR`|j:"f @XqɹD!D@()hDG \|9 KCPA 1Hۭ6*U+V_s53esf{ *k+H܌ZAmIu 1u %UV'H*QӍvO+% HE@9ǍD"A54d+G{¡PR( ЈZGG^+J)cdvfv.4AUIM1RSHbj`ྡh4ZĔ՚NGCmmsgfJm6PDԝj{{fzvچ[j)p[kb>/۽mk22vᕪ밪*б&f樦)&']B᱑ݲ$JW0%$rzjj}_n~7?sy ~haz P:ק.HXggfJ:@xJHPU`2r%`?T=$Qd^҉ VR@^z]`(3bؓ", 22H(%uml)l.`p,&@JkB A(8qN֖Lt+ J%T,-N"cd+L4 [S=yz!/VkX4G6 ZwYSC Lx8: L]XD2\)giX2h"A ӯԊ|Zܽ{F3.u͆ǟﺢ=LAP(ggO=\yk|}(~衉 OÆ ;P cc, Q>cRA]ǯ^(ڒlldmpR0-Ozm,nl `IVpf$ ݾ>Ԏ\k$,q0<bv*2[[î^}_}w\ؚn 8 cD_BN݈X!۶5RB&$bZfԪyfiW\h9\]98ݬT j)G&2-ᙖP(D&]વ6s/Y;KTĥVsm=xpa6q`]ryjri8]tC[ra D P8h,GG9sW);H ?IzEԙɟnix|gI=Pt+M;I8R5\u"D<Gxuʦ؞hhө8ѷz%~V3=Ff íGXP6uUN!ki6]G D[z*l\W%z"C @CgQq%*A!D%IY5FuC75M@u1_ $? *'(ܒ޿ B`@SRIb:z\ݢZt]$IT6^sG`1A*>.otc_]2V+VP@EPL*"I YϔqPLH&],yTPk 7)R[58E{ޛ|yDo?iطKWfNaAvez:DIJҾW翼p`sNY?aLpHxWGpBBV>t9:>coeBz d+˓WeFj>h/|wfv!4sbD$iz\.GaLPxoC~]=6n?7O2ύyfZ%WUQXx]#yb%Mo}T-gŢEk+4h4::e&jhJ{>7>1qÇ{bc#֡w%ѩh(ⷷ~0 v@KWpLRUıcC)Y^ QJ#SHSrwܣ5'NfRMs,*क6&glX5qxXI! GjcE|4&g& 3ώnӃY_b3,qhaOBٙnSˍ/HjUdV]Tv~T"zSG=uٖiMjHNRx*Dhu+S H#kzR4lMoڸX={19u0nN, =?wyƮ7DC3X"HP@![KMR%`$\&ǙP2F)PJT' pE;-TH, r[@2@ B LJ, k%T`Ծ$Za ӈRA0DA|b1Q ؠHR *>1D" @I!汷Gi5+n;$ǍmǴǴǪo=#(z˴8#(=éѲ4(Œr><|QOd듓?OG.1=T%hn'jda7~d_=WUc{k(KDCjv j~/Ğw}se`˗?b]ѵfn;WX] ِ}ZO|X<_w>_=+pF ǟxds掍{o<{tC]\t3;w*jnq}Nj{Kj{}!ԛx{$J{;>wd.>l_/xPpn9.Ҟ;:Q Y٣ @uSg_z?s;Ӊ6IF~޴=t۟V~'x玽_k7~_;\?ܶ#y+y>_z_Ʒb;|D ??\{v'Ǫ! SըM!+*b8e2ԟx'>5/p̱ݹ]1ӥ'ݶX41!׻2;72ۭOܸ/G3% Ƙ(Ri/*HFeLqΓr,q1ee!$8X:H T1BpƸ ce~\?VeBNn>ϸdLq8Bp MB YP%WipPE+% àY('?Gn^[,WF{BvmwYkO=d{ū粻xzd)-#Wߴڌa+Ġڍ\'^x~~s3BFKl[5ijE.ivܑ|bÆ#{z;- F4 a@qgG#=?1fxm77fݙvQk -[+߼3N;u7|6|_nx'8Mw? cVh]#Otw͙O\->;} ٯZ߬w>8]O\/}gyQm_^9"ꫯ2]}OO=Ν{xqofၙ7rb[S8=sfov=;\x;yyo6n}3̏nѺ+.w'uY}o{۝=)jiIv\G7_K|?oֿ' ]_#=t%ϯ_ߺno?pܖ}W6Zj̞?ZBх_}9[n֍߿_x2>s /<=&f۵/z;'  _ںΫOM޿Vd6vUSG_^3OUǞ&7uz;|ۻ/țN_x>_3ǬJsA)5M?rhLG7ZoghgwSI:~މ6u[@Wo[YGƏS]IwMW&)8{wko81{O%RV[ӑ+ID}˙nҜ䗭?l#;m(io{y+.=v{O; LQ9 H,A<3B1!J!9{@TcR4k2a@g@"iKs}&E|I 0#N񖷝 A Q=-P= !Pac7U6<,(d/, IDATYT{͌EŎ`>hT7 KLǣQ6Ӭ^rݦ-iay֑NŒ2+TMV5X.0q+xɘx %K TMc?IXijoh[HZtvƨp/U^sh0J̍K>GO4n]֖ _x SO~Gw(x #g`E4p_מ}B?p?c7߷.~'W?#( Vk6%Op})F`/#Xy ߭6,G,2a\ԭ+إ/J.&-HIRAtBuB=YuNg`@Րʘ9J)Ѩ@̗B)ՙL+%BkL((RB 1yo6n\b?G|Lv&^bu%bG;.|?굾ٺ"/\WΆB$댱u}|6%1q?'_~uvzTeCڗrO~}=c.[N?Q2jP75Xk.0o.Ke5q GD0 +tuoEoG58<{oh,.SPjVn{fbXQo=8|jgawmo}2^D|~]=C~FZ7 ~LOe#}'l{r@M<]}$?stN-eD-"(ۈ++-^j ;{^aۢ*gvWozM40.58 k^}{/;8|Bڋuܣ_{ݭ^ V\Ʃ$O(y뉧<yܳݰֹӳHٴ~-<;][֊h؏oWj_~0;f޳/ԡYKl/TJE86U_VWyǓ/:<0v~) 7*J#'rlnzIn6#,EhxoaVoFIpY9ܥqi5 W[9O{ZRzq mDхBV93^6׺GyW[fw/^&M3!i[AʩٱS׬izkPdjj*v}70D MOLՐeZZ) rpRq(ۨs5s}߬KKM;zmONZ#*7򳩨^N1~o޺_-*|?075*g}n߇|g튡msyº ?Of=J[{?~ʅY= ^;:ݧߓwMA#XsJpF%3`5Y<;f;\v[<}#5Bj{RZ&Е=?9ˢ_}&쎴ԱݿoO]5S̆hc{Vwm2>rԦHB} h|Z\)Zu7O|ɁS7`c#{S-c{-6"ڝxܷ;vKXo/j8S\0 x"I={n9X2qeoѲSܷT/V<]Kbރ&q ]|rý 떾^#ӭ=m6nܐ/RP@( @@RA?d^^֏~ ;2 󥄼x` į#Nu'׳F*t낐Ť_rǖF#E()K)0 R@$auM#ޢ%R%%qhL P,= JE kj~s!06 ȴֱ .f wc|?ttwڵkruttT 4][vk#ݟn8|tvt}S}֍[6067C*Wu,ΝlNgSl`FZTdu]aqub2jG,/6]9͏,SIIenp*tr44+\iiQ 6mh⿦ؑvљbEy\s̷Utƺ/}{~N]}V%چOή_ySq.0YN?k|x}nsU'NqW}?;jm'|kٿ}fn_| }T9>~K[+yNm{1R䙫V}s8M-wIVY[sɑ(A%)⊘@]?״Q1,",$a`&+ߪQ3ͬ޿*uխ9y9vז_x~ܳqA kǾrLlӺM==U{o΋G#g/9ן]8=Fz8llԐo%.6مg<:>1Q κ-{ͨ/{M"vӝmZ| Y- 0]C fp9g>9Bib-9_1ƚ84R!ಈ" {:M+"Wn.کA IhƋr@"7_%8!`9 of7\ki31Xh@]@ iH Ox@puU>dXEa0K)PJmΏz2F` iT&OF*VH2ndE&$rرQCZKF"j͛>䵟\3fff;WCPH@ $[۶MϞxd|.i|Ul{7mwܷ~+M } #=G뛞#Bn}h#VC,Ip` D{wG) S!ΞpR/>o 8u^/n]>wԛmePpxDbRE?mtaKk.I tq|i-7/;_ySOf2~Å+k.j_xk2{QM U M~c/a^ iZ&xLX.:zk*箼sJ 90ʥ>;_/oi5EmLP(kD^>?F?\EU Oo$nn{suzOW|v^._~ߴ⟐f{Bۍ'ݕ7|E/[ıB69sCꞔpk,'8/ѫvn~c{k{릮 pm\(̎L/€1ooi]ڦqժ3R k5W_}~s]UUEV%0V.[>J sEv:}9]86iM/mtGCm$"q@E#Nu3]{[4ia^[Nu'fU=N(,B>7ݩ[ ]Jm\}Ma04;;.$%niEceDzG"&,:pY(A('-Bxw5gF'7YpR d!`!qk,Р&aA&Gn~bSExbǩKY7j4-UIaj1QSN6j'(%뺶ӔʲL7*H*Sxyku~q3ҋs.Is։"SãfnѾH[EbN&Xk_7vEׯ: _M{es!RCE@%ԙ7_O-:ҢEۋׄ~u=zpz`%,)0L1.Ba@= ՙL&c<,ʘ tn(ck=st%?@슢) |{gR&[ ̕ݷ5-YcdGhHVklϥ 1=44Q] t[Dx0ըVUI֜J~R5J#4l19>Pho.C0O\N6Wvǀx~&!9kҍža\ Zs>-G֞~NݣSR.k[,DY^re녲 qS_:abTZŢXښS*bXȚ $](!Y1xp?}׏3+ rŷf5Uj"\ϳX&.D޽n۵G..6M/ |ͦ RL&s\KKK6FeYZK*==6zZ"=w^44cK' &_I<`s0A<bg NXA/}(%fBǚ1*e] ArO:"?T%aѣ 4َFwA.jҜe–g9 `%fQ+O;*wW+Wz;Lx 9jHwϞV#CAcр3" A0єqHWfu}Q(e-Fj cIl]i#", ,ŤQ[Fzg݋T#6yW۲_pEW߲#}"@[Ԝ툥dU3 eZ6hx,?wFg#ӭS1؞Ij@r(JBaAh,<22E(jฎmC1B19QTYw­kKpjsI(х陞xa%d7&E#m߶t:2ӣ%PO`1;ñp8h8EmB{ڮťaf/<:D'l;.m cZ8&b^4, R®m DŔSqrHTCȁZsՅ2pk*Zm{I$BSלt`SӽYZ!P(veQ⥙\(PpjaQ-!JsV*R kTD$n^)-Osd\iHAH*W*#u֐Z([?#>O/xO`љK& UA=h6ELUdr*efZt!~pj!RUa̐ZDYLw:+hlUstnR;0Gݝ^sZs#W2Y洛A\Q%,RJ\\+bVaPZG> K՘213ID*r:T9v;nYFBQ9b&C@5ي:I)NZuFFX{BAZ  [0"knQ~3[94v:ޒdx^Z_A(b%&6v9)gPaHӿ ȔsMף\0Hq\*[ͧ,lAz$|Nt| Ί[k5/)6|ogݻ.臯~yO㥡5M&ѲN]s+jlಉ\͆ 8(ʲuvu;-AA D"t,B K,J!e _Eq&A$EL{:@M& 轄Th&)g1A8lr9A!BfKӺK"oPЌR(8!vgмP`B`A@\;%t"?Q61<˲ѩ(V +F zp,[EUU` !͕ł:Db\DbCjVZXk@}W*ZF*4۾kS(bHQ3$GR)bZXb _5%"L\=8!,4=*k{bJU^ñ-ya2ư(Ț r/#=wʵҴ8£ܳٸS'jT" O  'ֶ ,G*LƠ&DP<^`%f{a,JX K,,3&Fxc- p\WQ]j5 bn谮hZ(<7>a 㓮ie֯ZnAP"%6:s g9p8?=no/.,$驩IEQ4M?z/G+tu4Mq8oƷ(Vɼo՚@]r^qNY "e N Y9ê Ǵ| iҵ *aU u5պP4 bT3pHXZQ\!Ҵ]_ٳW[.U!ph%©6J]ݽr&zHkbf(=eǵH t\w~.瞭~v[3șFpTaqiϲ2|{VʊZNL+U5gZfꥺmC:}&!(]ֿL iyQ?cT_٥9oqZrx>W0*\frl~AlvI,pi E7F@RG"i xű:W f=a+W;(g'w C23?;:<;x^g*SJ`,⌑s\2N&cUWOe.K!e !cg ;nt43(;7x4JInfKi 4SXV>xmբjRA!/AJH0GK !ˢ$˲**0,H"H0BHD"$' i:4#dQ2J]׳,0 Ӷ=7ThSopF!gP |ĚG> 0<AC!^仾x2MJJL'g֖@SX4ATPjXe5נ,"eUQC E:Q%Pt9 ˳('` J9`# QB.~dS< E=Bp6 VkbDOF*3a۶݌$)eYУ7MxAq@X@8D3 CjBHP+u]1mWG!-[jش݃o?-5nӠEU^C9Ǣ0 |Ma]eœ1PN1 EsC! <,5X xfK8u-vEGRUU 7|tm:n#TIb;D`:v}g]tݤˏ*{Xi9IjsHDVD#~6zeo._ѷ 7i_#-#n.aBY@cVt-z4d%Oxk7 LS'B0-imf7=뗾|`m;lOt'[@mvt3{n]կ௧Hi/[!Ieh:eq!#,BXm=}ؚp03cuT739DJ$VJO_ ,%;oz!ZRB+lffʅ뵜p!IEb7.(zR "DD,vwB'xMT iElYkΎ Hx$ H!k|#k Z$`h XpykDX' =oT-ҖܔJ15݆8?==8ņr@fҎފfp"%`\_Acj]̏88w׮#q ?;[ izUUc}Ccxb픺:ueT=liip"+?f)3s3R ~4ڻ% `"Η @#׷zUKz휵k{.OFHЂk.>6S n ]Ys?ٙKWuw.SۻÉ?]n5G+~wIlkTC, F8QR= A!29"C"3vD@9s!$M`lV5<. "@תM6zӂ󼦘1`Y2PQ9ʹG:#(@B[[mB B~ӿr0$!v߳e;Hha!.5*\,\qH8r5u,G `%Éc]BaLpC!=LTH fg@=wZ.T2%1 @P@jB=_B pǺzG~ MVG?_-vKU cm0'8e|R$ PXYoM-HFP [1]LmdOwRZnߝۿ?GK FK4*r]Lܣ6OFƲbUd'ǫ| x%T˗uK<}n܏Wݲ>+̼5ۻZz{iD.=ܭxWIKa;QQ8P?ul9X []k?=-qmogonxwGB:::.׫3l](o Ċhn1+&XE(kuСr ={=gdg.\7~ll{o2.z걛/E맞ܓ?zWwiX P*;_u Xϵ?l}e37_2O~/݋oteW*###pv͗=࣏D;WpG+sŊ{O[/>~Ǯ=>֯|[JdΧƎ=壑Q.8-3<0V9#%|ˇ (9N\";7GY4aDg'O qЌeoa4wLra8 8*Bar*V9fͺ9@Vj(,Q1̾)To!]T* ˴, al::X DVBHC5, /*c]pN)\Q P6 8@ Gص˪[#hj1цѨ ףvT33sL(m9֟ڔ{?oJl^Ddmæ>}z8>荴oJq]VS_}grx{ ^'ݪy^~43> η׆}3+Nuv%_ޫ,"&rgCw9zD 𓇷 3{=?ߗCߏ<3zSRO;?{ />cǶٹɖ+&fN0>MrUwoJğ*[;^+ϖR| o;?WfK+# +UAhF IDAT7pQƆP,k<ҩȺe3SU^Nsxb{o<鯷L{,wǟ%7:v'^:,WLVQ-%23lw>/+qoyroGHӓpwO=c?{x˵7~W.(;v[̱{Vy{fj_S_blڭ n0a(aitB kc>[>g]OW[_e6o#⇟zS׿&xd$޹>aY _j4jIghݒ3hʛC_O>/ԙ/~"yg[nw۳ց5}2q"w䎁end߶9m_J-oz̾;644|}# 9g+>Kxj*o=շճ%cܞßݳGĴհ.ןϢ5,n^ʳaƐIÁDt=<~Im !bTm֕'\fLij~0MYs=2Bè(˲,ˋO:{?@{Pm(֏}P!gj`/}yOQ||蠃D~qҀN[붑Tf?s}n|SFiTR}' Rm}[?V$ƳKss ޼ͷ}kZ%SF>s z5_L5V=o7$7v=ED_lMXV?ON~i=}`YhٿWjG{m/<>~|?Wn}uG-Eߎ^{-ԓ=y֭WM=G.SyۓxKZy`2/|Kw}?۽n;8eU8&Ηݣۣds9DY%$nҌb"rfk"Y/, w]|ggܧ~lЕz^o$-G?-g ^(Vb}CW䁟Y0ViVqWzҀQ+uˮQ0KV-NO=&[};P,u@Gk78R\v?yխɳ;V(x_>prlbz^v *0⟯ 7lI^w۾^n۵ -[ؕvwٵ[֭"vmȁ>{nLNO:p̋ ;=g&G.>|Vi?0r$z~p D:rI \ٻVoPubuo@od=<R*^KPQ),TWv?K޷co>-ER#G/pF V$q|~P\|ˢ*μo(X! 4w!$5ܦmMۑDC=YD72Jmɲ )@ 4Š4B<ϣb #dnNOsbB jpP)gpNƘ4ʉ ʢhA!A80 @0A8~YC!9=~% {j_#42U]򬹘296-;ΪhëėoƠbxoߵI_j>2 ?puWw&{ks_u%'2^Gķҳvs۷"2=>޸WWJI_FMcxw\t;򙗬ͅAa+cSlTڸ8dv_[/;|9Sft1֟|ϟ+WVKej}p`DtagG&T}gz9[ZWݒYۿz(ǻNR*+kZ׎Xݰ>ԖJ,L$'xS+ w̌VSpƈw$!Tv#od2uԈXvd(R^mX^CĤ/.顜ƥex@Z߾z+zoςjZ3pk ++se1Q)%1mP7еNX}{|lʼnTZ|CASLfw%9hC2tH퉤[ rĊpm:G1@P,NkܱfC(Q5-uND;7k7.4yGYVViM'ޜ+窮MwtH8&tQq YGDArιBwxtқ?NwΪUԽu=֪ѯ^^/uR.ڻ>w]&Uqy .ՔbnГ\ژ#-paK֖۝ƧK(X c뇦kuS[8G.Z_O| !<_X:3?_qT<5}~#~Sk}aK- gZ-OГzaEFe(wYU`~)7WXӹa| !ce,8`l̟x (k/* =v=epyK۷ds^[(>-j'P]-C';9;8 [HךZf] o]7#.~9 hKҵɏnj$~wEO?c'ǫ'st4\.3} V TaӦ(ۄ?w荻vUp_(7_YօY|o[~ꐷɼ渟tۂOK{e $|fʄ+4bkdLӠw"Ĝ-.,-ٶmMer{KlX<?Q;ڭ-+SlZLjxϯOuQhHwF= 5U]3#!ױd\,fEҀ# g, EPSu;65ѦzS|ujjjpp駟ŘlrQ"+O#԰Gw6\B8@-p2ɪ6BR"dj#$ѹes<\`rr>8]Qoo:}lx䷮~kI=w=z]Aw춦el:4uę\2TO&a$\sʼnd4&[3ђOOOOΌ6Q4hqcLDs0BBA %1RJ9Ǻs.8RJ`Bq`$ge ID!H$!y\Q9+ .B|BséK!ShϏF)Rp yST0@#  B!m|;CZB@A"?;GEPB=`RPΘ HƘA`]cB<njz+w{|hÆ;yಪDFy%ƫ%KChLDS?Fa#zPXcR*\ۋƓDbX:߸KqE=SdlЙs?]@}-'gDKң?Jv}EOD7\[;>7' bYh&#n'{*~n։G^%Fv~;~ㆱ|G_ַ/^^^]}9@j_oo.5T-~㼒jM'gF s.6ɾduzn]70JGb%=:؆EY-{``LtYj_Zc\SSZ J|OE3)!㔙@jqekhwENo)<\O.:1v۟x^3:=19>T+9,5~Ͻ3ٲ<Ҵ9l|mcsfSGR4F:V?p`S,0xc÷rwP9=opnuG,U^ErPpu"`pO2P3)x%Y ,g0/\_fT)wxoy7g>:ܵ&/>muO'|t* 9)4R#`::_X/̌6v O5͹l<4sU{wU5 ozv=7ecjkyy{^x+lmێ p^)gL}Ӷ?W [|itTNcپnIOw_R^3ؽvnvgg{oW$ Jusszs"?Z śBM]ZaEz(b0*AB"!@R "$@B!MU RJEQ\3g VDqBS_\וH+)U!ζ"pe_BA$Е*b1q< !r !J $( 3)Lr=θ'\) 'o=nۺg~b>W]vߟ&ێ}G67nE^POSS5vLsoȩ ṚЄ`3gZuQ}OoX'l]:0&5mO,5?5k/N/@,_4m+Xw#}Tv;' GG'fW群}i@@%_iX/eo>^͟±\.ҫ/}z|׷U[6 ´vhqtm8Q*On=u_ss戢~~g_uk_>NoŚW\Zݫ CPkuC @(ޓ'nw|Gvb Г񄳮yC_b/9z'>x޽kK7m۴7 O UM~57wcyc5-W]~ګϼ}_y#'t/֍C~sNn޴i ͣS|vT.LOO?~dr#`_z]8}*$t*ڟ>[.=r|#D 6~:-vu6͛xW.޴QfB9)Aq_}fǧO߲D@.pO?mlM[~{-m}~a3\gLߥ'z* ~3' 97׆gKP/_#{?m'Q^]7,S2}-MbԱ/qm_1?#rҙDRN5響}b'pE05(nٶ$Ď`Lb$&qRp/H"F D*BLNZ B (I!  ,UUc -pֶN=S?ztVΛ)CPt^Z 1H$HvyNJziD!@!G9e@@Dz%eA,ـK!\Yɥ p1q& Tpp] @ʳ=vOc݆DK/^o{'wqM)`Nj> sZ[ٳ?/~/ݹ_?w]v=_mM~z]o&l9A;tUXv07tb0+޺inMuy3>๳ݻDٴ&m͗mwǰڻŎŰXږё7U?ʳʳҰۏz_ёհݽ< ?tуp$ͩW]gmڝ;Z>R57i:[U79=/0#'4dzk.hƲY.5Ts^>:ڰG׻յೢ\͛>ڵ("76&I%8O8:;͛z旃bL쵷̓ y֓ !'SVZ )ݿH1]  zNJ B(C1P,1aĨ= )m +`*.2" J˨> !S]œgJ hUaۻvK~Ow5m?8=uWoo9ΔKPbIc Ā:dig)T]yo#vvt_|>˅};.h/Qwn>|5p_=clH~2ϬC~bk7?lxgY@,ME}CR8!6L;3A;Xlt9'{7ǺߙX7l]nqpútW{ \VD)!% 9PjUBh\w*R؜L; +H?{z yX!GGG-JU ?.]{lؘnotZ;9 IlH+ IDATT5f}1,ooqPcG͚[p-  I5䤞-v{Ϋ*qn\ZZ Db H*,- t23=1=NI5k%m_cycoiwĺlVA3&RdRtmHmFKO<<7?1NU'"z hLx*>z TumBo_!fY rK23me:DcKSp(TF\^-KMO~$xИHw#5WP4(l;I0Je1K2djUJhT$ `siNaw)؃B=, nG=~R(JsF[iaz<==fR *hX45 J B.Ueǒ.DbjPlJ rcl*Te(ܢA,z߻{VS|Iu:B0.8\!9T*b}(B~D  )c<UUUU ]dP AHMWlRxS)|WlyM !<"qyiRs8$BVB^H* Q=>ն3ɱ46:`"%^.ӓ=6U<S)ҭ D CFBK6yz`zٙnY*^ćc-w%dn7ۛI["WJ+5qK4\cLHmҵ>eܠյg+pȩ#—OSśQ°`42>4ږ`!#.άo_D.&몺v͚5F#<xvn`Ikd4Y6J҅58fyZZ&b rjv@U!JСFjwGJ@ó^,\2'F)cԉDDk}}#ssf4[_34D^^XGchpTBsvă]Ps Yc'{{ ɤҎLZֶMɽSv%[`s`edP-g[[Ze:Qt^ҮjX),dZ%'!u.0zM5ZPr6S-$:Ϫm}f"sMe3Kcg:ˈ``$ *zPRY ,U{̈́@K$RĘB 1T:QI` H 4܂a`PujmShaaT 045)B!,*Q=]55/.htժUιptiiph_~߾(U^~A\yE.\E^[B`E ua4@(ܖ.i"*b  cS/_߿eUexzYtbnw fFL` ͩ(WsٸL 5Tr`bB1dBfX, v z-wf \CdžV@lV2̤C+ԫp<8=ӛn4%CObTCoxv=`J)e,A2*&O+5n(N DB\ϫ[ `3@uGuےzAJOwRJeRzV95~dCؐH0$I)^fٮ+Scg.Xq0#5F2"@sˑH,JKMM%dàT*h,I!+y51N%&$Iu4 1QkTӔgv[ZX*;9ҧʾMRKO(ޱvRyӚ(B y.>yn$_mJf$dC\.Nr΁Uy(F*uzj+\)D(2:l0hfb.M,ml)@O m8WHԈ6:QxD֊&3XgCvV,#y}Gӹ!9+>8;Y!SLsC%D! " ~^]wTh>b#BH!Z8)*Jgi ƚ2@{Q4I@@qk rFqbHWF\Qum&",V5 J)Xuh`0joc릮cU#F(15h<e2x" L$A3`jiB305.rvM ?✸zSp9wjf**z Ęŝg-j I9@@2`D^69;+{Z}# AP̠ATH&cSzP7pӨ î՝ckEs4ŌIpD+l;xX6m۞5Cp*A1^TOV,GbH".U2V"IDNNĚZQL=TXaH&QMs TOH|a=LwO.")=P (0HE@LDCH3$+P0=]ӱW)4hhkF:!UȚըy0U% ;2 U^,Amȵd$Z"s\P|0nXS3S>-TT 17pȠ:-e&C5I"41UO)4:ӄb*JAIP튥cx\Cll@>h0<9>6WX -wt!LtD$1(UWa$Pmi88khj<33qPC7Y P \GK7:Yh I]Z;d0]>VѦ`h+P[L'HbL`IBxŪqD !(kqƅte,A}z~vעQ/r|r"4h&AH&芪뺮iL#G"sID @9+Z2(ugݏWX$'1h=͕?{s?NQs3!5:3~8I6յ cNOL˳>T9Y * ) xfh,z)O{K !E3*Tܪ47*2sh[gi3hFt8oy?cOs\' D++?B2%@CD BY[ [9.< B@!y_?+ϙW$pB z"򬋖q;]C!]UB!! L (&P!"d 8# + ZyM)@zN*wTwA0B&:"0`DbR=.V %s  ,e+i nC KŞ2sO ͺ AV)QA)AESQq:s\ bnXFT\߾fT]ʗT r ạD,7-^j I,gXXLS&<+LBEq pGA3䜫`]1(b`tfh 2[A uƊ -ezNҝ:%it2gffZ$`6lrG֬.S0!yVu)!$T*<K;;-[zVś# (lQ=8R`8 Ֆ9TpZ8/9sS2@ow/ w_< j|eW}tiyzWLrai"ӿc쒝}Ｖ Y*oi+5j5VP#SrcѠۨFxrbd4[ԏK?=ݻkH% *`oN&|Mg{7uNΗjٗ^|efmOW!QgsV>?i~dɹ|,ixn{kPK_m .@ $:FrxDuw`Y\4iip(V`-Yկrl@"$gJ勦W6+z\z}J +%iuBH!*|&iPB&uRPJ  .J)A) ]QUQ9Sյ_V7~v!2!$=J! V1O5mEW) B  !! (`QL } Sq'1DEQ(u)i!(HBUQ|ZaB@4,y['jVc5WK*zM`HE HH_4RGrj>#'(U<@Ǫp't$sDH# <۵뙪VuTBJVJ^M-@f() !#75wpUPhi#;?0d(`ynC0BH68Bxs2sjv9qT`aNwj%&[wGt$o Z@ DW\:C$0P) P,Z/kS_7|Z&`"zpn9LROG}݅ Sy#hBa],Ur(x|9,t5%s MMIbWF7,mMP\}]5ta4- "9fY/_"rҜK6Ve-^\S]7 $W@uP1A`)SN"<hivI`EX?|k]R D ^=?;ѷ>Ux/}Wwt祽oKb~zqtH.W!ep5ꑵ}R5+H,e$*jVk. 8ohBƲ =R9`˵Z1lR/HD~[_:]a#:O$LB \yRbGzJ+J /G|繞sx B`h!oC%Hgҷ-1)< %I @)5M;)X{8z6VUtFBJ"RzB (=TBX_ #>ڡ6#!$p)θB\PQK$R 5SJ؞pVn`U"(`q R%Ea0c4U vZ==a 3-` @J,-V:7jK]5t(HSLTBhFrU`SR`u׵ԌP#]'hK7fDXJNNAj-ƌ*'~m#ѦO=7^[Nݽ~d(Z<(gtCպ<ٔTTT`+S]իT4TZ( ukx6%8o T3m-ϫBf5 DEBCM[xڭ"/tUjMx͠ kaT @an3͙Mhv~dL^;#Gx544MCrTBzqj6=/u/߰af]5MEtjĒ|nWH8[(.q3$ܥ| F*7$õ|ʗ4#M~ o稢t /ꈼk1BaZzJ$vھ LsӜtGD8now/@$b SB8bRM".3"(O+v r}Tzжh- +'.G\c>?P1\$\j b}X9xB!sRhSwЉn^cWƛwh.VL=.hدMA*m鮦K43`<鹙Ba˖l`GpM4, rC)CxN"c,/q;&u\*,o%De>@)K!bD1Dk#UK!1*Q 5$H @R5m%>?l^ KϏ(b?)qvq Hl֩Bݬ4;ȅ"@RcBp K&\H",!FHdJ +#We 12ǣܥR R]*-5`3d}LU‰iњRMr^NJ,c)  o8\+6M`|qIini9āZU@i0`e9 4 ZrȽ:Z*Sivͮy O %z@2tjn"~$D֌r#/<@{oO5;78zRJT{Kbc*N !̺\ؑA0ֵ=Լոk"-nfq|,,Qf4E) b5_.mt>_K3 l}/ݹq[splpAu` YwjV_s{KڍJE exzQ)f S39qb*m1#x*YզV s3Tܞ[f%K3OܘylhOufKzl?mjƙYW'F0m^8t7^9_*}z߶Ǧk#󋍵=ǎ<3&ရ \|r>-f8K(K3xFiG0;4{t yx߾r;#!} \o}Ek-t>D'ǟ_y9[Ojh} ]\^sl!oj?M۷(( IDATow,yiߚ['SFSVs\j;R.[ʥ3KXZ׭/|-4k3 ;" W7x뎯}~wux;&K^ ?~[]m8|  <;GWϕt++O99<'ܳ'H+,":P  z4%)Rp)D!JLcB@_Q77qO !I!*QH.4H2rg+]V~p&=z.eL(A M! a = ..gs̅"DB)+)Xczh4w98a j@߰FݬTb`!,l^7<Ǖ\b4ƽB~|*}̜)_~ [pR12DB@-RSV[*# g-UZ:jδOGfo'v d[BQ]WˋKjcq~ :StZ-ɔ8o SiqG#M;^Yh<12rXGKܐlo@X=:z='Jռgۮ{>k?pN8 ]ٷcsm1S՟>j{it![-0W)D/[o )gs{Z?Yj|p`G6?oWmi~WGutG.:4>>23Ɓێ[4S_bCM-X(76Jj ^ @WŗJj eU9{w#pAE~ B0!*]AHۿxbY4rV+ % Cy ,{fAJCD<(%!a@+8B*"BKMƹt+ВM3Qʼ_&+Ik.,b#}_w>Ǧ2ɍ^؞8l6y'_/-o z},d֗#Cǥц_}Lɳ҇g낱9Og><35>̃|?peЗ^Λ?|*-z9iM@·F}ឭH[{c@zuk>[ţwy.O?j^:W_`ʎǟ>|GĻc[~vڰݴ9Cl﯏"_ tه^o믿{qp[juXԼ0:5]ޫeo=k6n^s7{o>|'7 =_-- w~|/&X:n~F~{r7r݆<-~`ҫ/=.knшFn͝=GN<{t'}z>0y˓6׻/ʲϾH~9<ۢ*J +T/徹|[NJZ&JiP!țL`{{` 65#V>>..PY ?ah$),APVH聀bB#kqm۔RBQUo8]j %ox7=C=-ݰx=ٿ^r',=rGoO9ҵ6jvRw')??W87?/'m߹+_l)1;jM=l>(q-{\מqo[Z:۞ѓ:sn*u6{GeֺIYaٻNl=ԸQꋯ|>_qUfl|x% VOLQξ' fwMH[3c3c5NW.8iqêQ4Hr٥mۛ{6#Ǯt> DzZ~⹫7i= N 23stFݺ8pH{Xiա@48T0` nyl.g8LpD/J)=+vp P-x[GDz5+2sYei͊gC12;5μ7#駭?uQI+"˒Œhm ԃ̭ɟ;^wn~x8Mh4!k2${wUeRn\'ĶF!g655Hvx[窚H4!ab)pZ9s}p->o?xk7I$OT YBܘ=&iܨCǎ446i ,:ɡRɪ'[V$9=8"{BV С߻#[zO:}5?hwgmzGC=uӵd:=N7&Z+7w$ MI5ɱP.5K!&5$+:;=WyON0b-B8t1UY$ c1HsjEg1@$ bM1_&)k_Q4Hc1{LBdP( !pO@!(ۘ"!$aӎ Cԇ)T_L s]qP;Ooّ޲ K@#w?r_z?Jm[~,(m=Tili ToosOY/oX~}~`EneҩncAHXZBDχX;6;Gދ&^ToBwf?+eڃ,~:`6F"BP6I!V@1-Qo1/sU !"Wj_ [&@U/.YTlc}YOix< @ p)u8e2q@P/41Qߧ?eqU]xga@Ҕ3Ӛ:,[rUt;r;-^ӛD!6rBjjC[CK[sbǁo~e|jӒ*c34# H`:O {{vxBN+XV̹݉\Oqut//rFm$NpVIoTג#ss5P]d w4vtxw%g7[_zVsՕ58&OReʑ`]S3"xX1;Km;ْs@vlYkjH,7^=;Z=:AlKphYd^ )7ަaɠ[`*c\jvrt (Kl:WNL6J7IˤgxۆUɕNV ;oDz9xnVx\CLrօds!>g)tYM JA#,r9RrRQL=1>{KK_?0)q 82U6NLK>~ɯۛu =PZpYc[hXjQ+͙$XG;-5TM,;>`27ҙl P}2Xg$bh&,Λzr<+L mrzCk3bp`@tt`Hrp4$8wHa@b`; 'Lf|Uc?thQIR"w҉\oI6V syzGxw+R\rpO<}_bْn>םv,3%ƥ+{Vn)Dw~s^oz+&\iA jgGC=\׾X5N)r8Aߨ:4r\,OHr.#&?p"V|]):66ԹjC3ٲeV;SoW9|NPƘ @H% D>s !~z!#XFVs ={[[hS 9M4hxnIdڽ^ (Ѻ2oXذ$ev?v7_ h>+/gO8ek+_CFyX֖9PP/ZsFO:.v-!#R?w7\uS3AҐ)~ nx9m{x)m5p{t4B@))iɲ't~_OoUN5&rhon"iP weXZoӯ^#ܟЖ<}h[ryϮׯ+Ǩdj_8Z/G)wkkRH{ϪMx]|%׬y"2[kIq굀);RYr E]4^Nѡ>FZF,7ǎ8Wwnx▿LYRcCҞPgW29h7 }L9y)!e&oRnp7 qOhJfltd9:RWSmW؟lwՔy%z>nP PSgZsнW^qnsksת%;_~3N6dP'W9_ r%a5RC/c[?m{WUD,3y՚T9.T*< wߙˤ^y}45huqv:ྋ{Z͜\GxXbŴn\rg/\fKOͻO_qֲ?Bi>|t}jKۺ;\[I実O~KXWl{e[ Rh|nUjs${[H,PHv>jh"r zAxj1RUaQW~E|Y|tŋ]j@+UC*懅/sBȲ,8bL9pcqpa0D1SH)Pu!Xv#hw4 97~vSzV:/eKҶQ' ǞٳgO%g{io;k(kՆX]x>uP²-ɆlXZ^UV.qݬ1z՗`Gn:T.D^p>C՗s꽍 7;<-%=JKT%9;2^O]"?;[,j157=3e}k[@c X2xhɈk]3{<{ЖuvMضk׮h4t\.+TWkmiҴ Tf&KBozm(TSWsj_߿`U;:brfIϗ{lH3 rX]ͱ'ظyQ?<< Wс`s@nY)fZ(U1BX,(;o_zVdYv㒥,CB$LZ DaBy~.ٱg`]b&x8̜M@%Gմ5q"'ƚkJ 0 |1[tYXJ66'ce\4M)$xP,B;}}}͵n R6s RPq6FX,Fl6KmBp<.Չ(0Ð#X&GP^Q)gY(]$@CPF-gvf]o8/e!za 1* ,geYT* Gb1ι FI "v,J)aJ%,y*jii"SC M`< 4`X3t>5e`x ͍ɚ\[rV103#HZ:G'*>:>SB""p8-fɵW# M23paH mrK^ @3畳j2I=ule;'1iYvR%/JNGQMԐ9dkMOL5%r RP(=[*H-drdy:s !?(Bܣf㺔Ҁ/fU !\\(h̾s.U[& s'Y[([V{ iB溾5x'V y_~A R]׵]((<[3$,O) .(.!d݄A!,3<."Y&zٮc9y,KDʎ@ %C"Qv4$!\|YzW=sC0TU5sqR/hۡ؂([j B$B0s?߉eYf cr$ !T$s?gwJyܫ&+x9g'E&"}\AH-Wb$ @D@՟Xp~M1#~宺J~>Ӵ$<:ph ZLRZ.'&FeEhl&j0T-›/|WCϼQABq1@1V,Rt1_T!$U@$Jv9J@pC)8J t]cCJ&B8bP` F t(,P7eY/h<:J !Z%LRz.Q0$iRa1QU" I`j\."P\3ʭj 80mˮx2,Èkc45E ]FSu9LβYP )f(Tv-3L(H;tZ‘Ȥ^hRIX°$%k[\!_[_gK4k !N%# , T`a1ӕPy#3ݚjkzhk[)w4D t U/Ɋh+sFcj(RR%N as1 $%k2 C]* ^f gH%벢J2X8!#(Hā'瘹b`5NMk) |DЃTB.XCD$0r@hm(LI-I9?ai)ԫ .N*g`EO&c2&AUh$YD6PGGrs4T37|٧>Z9\ʹ !Nf&Z[ #$LB@V+\l. "}Oo[25trd2 m3dfV(gHئE>@|CU= F6MRDI$g!c,s @P, s.\2aH0溎뺒"a$1 P$!aaO9B :q@\8W,x%" xqSEbޣp8J|tPS0e>'KcZsr ,!LU0F2/Ꮯ`~XT ! u߫,( JsO'#i,CWCa,QA}@ K0 S6J)~Ǧq!&ijF| lJ3=J*uCcnHڴnJ .q9B{c#}gqF"`Y oh33 5eepӦ喂^& XHw!1 ]B,XB@LTz}~y%Pt iKd}w;/g>ZBH$BKJKHKH DZҞ BtmzXaRQ$"9+*R8$BL(2)p̋Ol{7IG (s0\1I!A)UdQ+-EP&r &}CO ~]/v&IUJeQ*y2ytZ2œj8N4qr錤*u Svd!~Ԯ]y`J`(c@2yl|z/xB\>'U (b)HTL,P!M|ŗ>ϕد|#-K324Gd"AE1 "_$Whq l.x4`j"1A1L2${ļH@t@ B0ȅ3#9" .똶%! -8* _CHTA|?H)5M1&Iqu]Op!QH ̜EG1gz.Ƙc` ʠ!|~yԛF\}'!Ӫ[ƛn0!(c.cKZN(b8Ok1XeOT/iM9XpWDB ǙB0.~cCuB0!s=1 FPoC`GwP!11MS9*Uʕ\A@ ]Rz37f +v_ڳ4h8+VTg=B91Q(+)EE<㯼sgZ0Ur!?BcŸ}?+m_J YBI"2e 0@`1(e]g@3(( pOpH0`P<+UL ZtbRj 4Bˊ iDQΙ;!(y}%I%@ Dy>s-@@# H,Qt.Ҽ8G &x`<{ur8ߔ˲6o, g@ʈS@9dKD&#DHc|#9Bϣb1R`u%mBq۶'_#r(_ز/ܳAā?qC^}_~ַ_]uiffXk&f'SFA*8 N >أkO B$b, + <ߏ㥹ʗ`$lbi._.=< X.dvyB, ]. (u= i&\e]d,c#ͰC ]JEޞd& R,fSViŮ (`mR2,@((seB DZBYD8p]RNdRTA-Sg&Õ\9w3Ǟ}#EP86 ʀPPPԍXY'k$".[,d<V3>vI~t)WCd:Nhv ٬7>=:!̡Q DW} udΤd1+sǸC3+᱙%M]fHf1lq\V5CF&4*؆Kx]775MEq,ێDCuNc)o8srT4BN:Sh$XB%stN- @P0.pOZ͚>ëvq/8@OƚRԵ~J71ױV?  8 yR@;?e /lιT[""8Xp1&8Tp A1E cy! 0)O{GU]V IDATs :VKjIe`#Gm8xcglp1f{LAd$!,:p ǭ.oziUoݺwosd"˕J%"JRɎ awʣoCwrOG둙>󴥃{?<ȓ(̿x+o{!%{=vPnbbi{7ъ,2$(ӓY?k?#oopHsT7eO?QR롫o8YQhu^( (Z6oFJaICebN؂p<8(ИpR{5egf{[6|O`P'.Xؼ\!4-A.+uR=3+F'LwvwLv7۵E'ohض{۶}Ԓn84^p5d2C6_*Pq.QPpZͽ5/Ɨs7-j^6,=aY&xy֡}y*8uq睶xiۂVm1z<m>-Ɨ*<f'6T:֦^xpY7hOfȍ7ѯE]Xjkir}cËO^'>^49~xW߲ēloS#8EQT,GF^k>tgv7r~}{MGd}KSYlw F.Wo^9¶]=>O8Sr0 9 smHJ34ƈD9(V&13[[[4*ibilrw"RdIS;Z1J)겎KQ@|D 111($1(uԑY -QI݅4DDFDT.KA`Jשm]QL̅NLlI*JL[U0t"ʺDHL XexJ-=Az/UU<;m=ϫu-1=PaV5ZG躮Fa}?].VKiec[ۓm&Ax'ʘ\\v;Ę0|ZiMȌ :$P\H馤+e:衽 ]OvG?9:fθEQǵc7?|`wwASw'/]zd`XhP;_ևoϊxkWR8w phEOnVwe?SxW\}T騕˦G&>]ڽKz}Oꖪ[ٽ}ǁF#_e]ǃ{jnjݹo~} JK09SG_~޾WyѡKW}YWmڡ7wڏ??q]wm}xo~=o?߾kl ?yUu]zok,ei!sן~wCzѹo<߾/٘=<7`gtp9%ew |uzipFΩo7?lG?7_=_［.M <h,6İ42Akׯhϟ=?篞|?.o|2~mz 8JnhϾ۶fӐznbܴ3_[~_Ы|'^}{wbnk޿3WR?|UJ/o oyOaT<*hrpsWܸ맯>۷y'L|ts٭_7?cgf'ZZ[Z#cĺl윶m'ͷnFy'm??cw_̵M]jpY 2` .Bʼnj#dS~}N1 auDa!:YheX$8!H0cc4z3hQl<~+xYX*1!P&Zs!tZQ.MrB1f0*aZ e=f]Ė8J"+ GaϾ-/z?ZDzڦflٺ+-pB$dSSǟy?VW^Lá7.Vom~}7غw)燯[m߱?㼳,H[gӇ7NX3oz#v6X~_y [wK2 4\sW c?ػ)}xαwtˉp.l<>> W]{8Iכ j )ݴ==}G}ކ6zOިg xu`ןn:Z{ |]Βԣ;==y7^xT*uc?y`ȾÇJ*Xܳܳ_/_ڜM,gos?L)a {^7-,OQ>k+ʅ ϾzY17^//>N-Æu% -xIuLE׭=k?n7~5Yz9 ,"_]ם;"wU덍W|1[B6\;l]vԒeCӋ[w3o4г|+vOy`ؾ1^{~{u箽TZJ+B! CC[Su{G]{ƞ:>GZrzf)Njpi~c+Ul~ͼ%69u;{;FXiItqxt4՘Ng(dۚ ˩y^V>/t_]i9R&Pp%!Ԗ)PL De\B0/\~&Ǹ24 F#(#3)Mc 3Ź`t'>*JQ$߁St%6$J }mj iM0IS~a%uV+mܵc,|9ʸ>)zY4X\NO?{ÇRw/]? WsE㑱y_rNS_'Sc 9xtѤ",U \0Α˴Mc 1@ !tQFV'?D^v*E堖l}]o_j_ܧjMQq9jUOZNc,%@[Q,QeUűbT*Az+`I[8 Τp,s}Oz.pL80PedcGӪcA!jv͓7\fkr8K*Mv߼D\,zGނiO=zK#wGC!֮XUJ~7tYջSO>NL[8JQ\wgْN)KqM )o54l??g;Q8ܭ/mk#ҩ, Ku2IIenhˋ}syO-;'nXi=u/o~[SC}/^۶\;.Xx`f weZVffO]) ➞?l}g2n_K#ݶl}Ϣ7ˇonOl]# G~]m-`Ak֞+w;17k|s#Œ%\|Q7~sW.>)*?ﰨ#̲((^͕V,ᾱX:8%f¬<48׳MuzC?g_v~i֬Ys8}(1 i)݋;;|eKn~eKW~Z*Fra=͖[7EOds-¿~M.բҋd { .#'vwuqD3(9Dʀ6` <D"7 cD* .G:u^*I3ܜfDP,9G9"*BF*L.4d":r Lf9G)E@H E *}ċ2ILG\8B:BJ!$ hx*cjʵ~J)!yuMj!*.Ok-G4?#9i'q5h@ K`/S9 d,="Ξ[SH4Y"d2usD\rCpΥ2dq|)ąLgڱgЯ{mWkW/\']tسjL8M΍b'mxǛʎ Oȝ-e 垓B}M;};99o/>Nw}7^UG dlD40009W?O: J<{ʱoO;~ʋwoz-KXpEXt=3Q42%Pg!;7<ߎnm_ue7}8٨{k?KO͏o|'K-)>w׻^zꙬ'XD*;rvY`6E|+WHNMo8O}#Ͽ\SSSckG=wpǟx?1ܽbio[Wk@ԥלzǭZbZ.7# ;[~fyJB&Jl6ΊsFu^fo8mk(~ IDAT7I,h',K'g;@^q9Jݏos,~t?zm/ R%:T:dY4 8RV `B-+r-)cH)i>Z[*D*1)stʺdՂVTl" (@q}/(rsr-Fĸ0MPyC>rEH*!YXY;\$uJ1{TUrg-We3PHɛ q$wQZyn26V3 &")o&͕u\6J'=q&yR늄MH*k Y"J\l6s) A96Z{=~d߁0+_RS>,,o<^֎|ulޅV\xՕLz& g7|tĩo\6+.XQgsw g.>]Lwqࡑ sc~3hk.9пwkub3طe+έϟ,G Sq]'ͫ^.\`!6?,=MʢÔuƂ^{sYO-zW^ܺCsƎ:W_ݬ߱k{ڎ8ܿ9g<5βO\b= ӍNQr/yjE-lj5>36ͽY;}RBM\[dFק۟k1ۃŋ3;o]ֳk w?0(mRxa=PiR(31̕I7j U)Ŵj9Rb_}Z+LyEjg>?ws̒Q:B ( I%9|B\wN Hԕc"XdȐU` Qnt@8)MPۂ zYIR>D!G(Bm]dB yuZ1#D`y[`i4P'wftp yltHyMS|J0 P)jsș&Aq!D[sKkI;C'gG4kT妴:2&ձ;%)<Ƙ1U/al^PTh=ER㪯Zxkmw) jƀx9wȰT*@fXYL:m4,"@QT]dT#@C֨X@9,D0$D&{ >ZUl4^S$ 1 ƴ֮8e.}.cjXe8ܭ􀕓PeN$HyLp!%ZɲY $MlAt[]0]Riw,*t:1@F g`uk˥wl).'o9II3]Tq'A9֚ \pdd&QAґ ؑ:}Mo|s,i߼cIkfp@djv:ciߧWpB"G`%JAGSALS125%$𥷶}|ꯟF@TЅ`ʑc}:^n3Q1UOuA&!R\.+uwEƚKǕNʒq)y2H 蠈X}K1gؔɲ6JZb4&́q@"a5'U|"JrfF"HDeQlBE!HDD@D`Z&i#@[mL#bd XKHV@\RXtr?Hk<ZY!-0\r#d ԪH!j<9b6XKqaǿHRZvdq$Ê.PHxYJfDZ4JQ@RLG1Et ëGfKU1d9OىN<9w,cg#U֣yUhN.9";;5m@TWQbB$as\: "` HGS TAc,9{橵XIR p4̚DIq $ې*+7ssR0 @Yk/#mEsD.QŝʫVGqDH>ZlRR'jkj?U-V_q\턭aZUcGLk@X Z`2QbulXCDH,@4K7᠑=ő٪G5M5|@6}Zݨ.V&~&K:ޱT@WkQ%a`ZU VSG*d(R(qYdsFQ$81a@c+e.C"e*5Zd2qAHLf(4j-2ek9cEbmF ,#br,Y3eȐ#n9Z&v bse9HN5(eLgZ,Y $˷ݾgv6_*F== Ʀ3T&1KƐq+9V6]=K Ibp(n6=.%$?(4Bp/pa`ʆd`&-q$?;ݕNg#AMS 5*cc3[0ZMDl2U5/&?V'iQ eiXk%N1 `\"@Dsܕ餘XG2,e2KJbh.WDeKD c aB:VD>PNEz$c"b5Щ >՜iT3|%y) HV*TJXqI2@1c2@k%m *c(2c#@f!a޹=SMo7d+*ƪ6G\|kBֺVdkhB'=7T n#Kʠnw fȀ&@ΈsL▣*c M1:u2C%ކU$z`ʂ!dcd5@ 50"{!1q\HȤ`=pS'al(R$9j^"Ks$J\r,0Ȁ ϰyuWcE \3"FskV&4”H|X^>߷%r!OIXAL#Ԝ.]opcq2S$%lҴd RC0&(ntO-saT<XehHQb"0 UƆ6"6=:*nd2:lX֦<2ϭDYvd0V___5;ص,yM尡1N Ak$`1@Ml4Kf&&sIWf D(̸R\ik\a `2"q5,+cqLX CLQ4< vYg(AdGl!k!AUhOV׻'&nǪVؕMM] ]mZƱ2W3iR2)R&VFyk"kzMFLQhLK7E]2đK9nZusQ J8}߯KxZ빹9u]M7o|p߶dIN73w-3z @B4Pf8hݨ%3Vw3Ӆ8TfF>}練M)?Va8DpY\]6q4(˾4 gXfAVCdZ#Ӓzbcʂ/֛xsB7 7}Fl&$M[kB-V7X>|>6h+S1OY mWH:}#3?7c(ԅzi< 12/Ǘ}--'"N ϗc^^.6a;UOSmmXMzխA+dzyqj+1f&8RK]!lv=#",OZtAL4 3x<9gV,q8/0NWok Suj2d\#.Kf1y/j"ECZnmymujD"! v΅J)eY0OQ L*wurz߃SޱqDG,cp,Q^/;zaeYD$I.KEffx23?2C|fxoADė̔3!!4j\\K]17wQl [w!TpZ#ȎʹvlNˀ{8o|>1oz8^PNiS€fs)ɚi!G'{^s+ "EOn_qApI7j=̰!f͹ 6F maM]fB$O)Qn/>+50I48_N&~!`-Zhs.2 0NG4g04b_뙡vpGD Ӑ#aіYԦk n mZ9YiDLn.?AQu\Ґe^͛7wO)mheC@ I$"+x}Zh٤f Ȟ)H )9!EՠdaWOgg# 3hՈYM{:\S4z[SJajbߓndG"N.Z'33IܓǞo]SWVu&gf L"Y@^^0ƾ}7"by="IDAT;\V[V%>/n (6D3i\DWԱxM{/Xk# @nMr!qwoZ[uh\.w7o 0h>ͩ:ą0$%4$7˴ǾF5Pϭ<ĉZ2:d=y`&XQs;37rb;u0ݪb4jPu0@0PmZi)Vk.SJ x#fdNa}fІD9g5zpIvZ% <1ݤnnfJ‰ynj+ú[{4mv;"Z"OϧaP % f젪dƷ'%9Fs8)F$Ǐ9 ¯ΎWf @*r[_)F xR\)g!E\gNq0IGSoK Z,%"T#TY╥LEpJ{iPbBf](FơWA`Ja<zD12M@@dl LH8k8`PNU0 r|p?o6ʇ1"jRTU5=&SH!v;LfZYv[I"fA$@!vjvCr}$Y "{@kVgתb@((8`YZ IsdRTzK T%FY`a3"2#a 8aP0KU]]$MlRU[jfN(:wOiAέh5'zb4R Yy0iNp5(॔\Hk^"x&"v^̛֪V#0a|8fI!e""nʧ'0WHX!S 7Wjִk޲#)q\7/WKtS+='W$-w2ZuJq\SNvXl{WU]^nYq7@$ whu AS@'tths*:e{%<*} dAaW w^ژFύ=ЍM)&n}||a͘CPiDD ؐ4Ą{h*Ն)sf ǨPX["`zg;oAq Sy"WWZ:j!"33[Vp'@*`qihVKKH0| oyDqTC[)54"Ȥ^Hԛބ=4=0ה쳾G3R/2ӳ*-!01;ٍKf=ܣٽ>>wWaWؘr-ZMd;߬SA \$#u1_.{pt|m(|ueX)I3  `DbN^U(,#!DÕ.# bHb?pcXuiHx/l4p^c)H,h 얌`n;sVGU`ͭhYXZs4HQRFn")& @HN)8L}tςRmjOcN eрA22 )$sp w`wrH j7>{sX : o6@HD(EݧUV  6Cëփaxݗs1kOSJݑswGc7ڿw{w%Ba~\0CASP#1f)DtAÇ=w"Q/Cy~_q#$bLY;F誊yPEm;$H ٱ(,H[o'@&pgŴz߿ Wzc=$tD #]`@tkXASsjMi NL)Ap\~{>%"*ᆺ]0ҧ4h@>4줔8*ӰJ?>,V2ͷ8$&uzރٳUfÂ(Ʋϻ=3<fZ8)2Mχqѣ'I$Oѹ9g0 Cߺv{ONR{eQpE.3S&4bHݩy Ld`L), I2ҫpsNLYzOueR<%FReYq > &?+ZR8)qZ/S3MYro`GNp#t`wƀ0B{|!DGnʫ{ ?ݳ+a1x֘ٗ_}j {>\g6 R&&7C߼n{Uf'2 Q8Erwx5GdaqJc6DƏ| }FV̎,,bCk'ΔRNWԥ#vĕdț]Ι0ɐWMϵyZnZ{!QѶ,erSv%5 ^J2$"ISxuCABkW m{0kiNG<:`p'({ku,.4P@ff֛S1<A5F4[]3!3cu[6r\usni/^.@QOL`Ys ÃR@ĭID6㎇I >)V5f=&֚ֆĉ}ɌĈhϯb'Ǭa0ٷ4ijR<S$L"#G6d1UU%d  P1QyȔIqXOZq$bMkmmĞ$\FjZe峲ct1h;!m6,Җ"afUW^&33^1I>鲵M_Aīi۰4ʯ=L5~櫷]Ôҧ\{\N ,b )MbIqXe{*}?BH"'<>6|<ϧ"T_W:B@uzXo׳.r!^nis8/5PfaH&GVrt~!$d{cڬ?e0}7~Sȫ-*[ 0c$= _ra´j+պL㭰.Զ3\Njΐ8./ʆ{2[};y9#₰=:<FlEd|8w~omWqzDxq?0a>G&Hy|$-wpx7;Cr&KkMrjvkk餴8MzԘ)F>/J;f̻@fnADC: >"wwRJDD FD+{.IM xn*A _/t^ʾe˧7)4i6"3 #q84hks>U9_E_?=@rlaŁaehl>*þ\O0":ˇ9ּ̄0ŀ @pMpjΆ<un0MӰ<_.8%̐% p9-4y/Ā.OP1ٙ@0F9V[nf!kIG)|b}ʮ$L80 e"xxS5kd |3>=/1=4Ml6ҋaJc je_ϗwIߟy>g+#Z,*":!&JBqҫMymaN#1rofC!F@BFK4 < EƔլh>q$E}y>vJ " ?eYj]Ȣ67D>R͚U[.2yѥr0R7v{:ݽFD`ytb""NdafV[3R!p pЙ!v5j.)?._Oov~{|8|?fow7⩌υ}rGRN<4Za懁qM?eK # R0 ׇq???SLAD_T^_qSGUU4y𩻩]L7jY`zs)ٱ-6a7 Ag䓅2 $5D B`$D$0z\Q>Cw3SS wo9K%" SrNAp3v!G< :K&a$끄q9tfϗ3Տ?@Ɣ40M׭ݗ1Io+=l?|?NyKǧ\̺0`p_Acffiss2eG;Q! + tk4 <C4f0e޿{xPOor|<˽@1ye͎mxݟu#7]FS5TwM4&u7_dn0McŮfwT_/Xl9[kO_}}.RJ ñ^z}-޽;;t < RO$#"2FSR/@4 iL9M9 X rN]-,K V܊tlD<w%@,8@!Z" iy}qXeK&8/??=_՛?o_,|w{?Q)/\[YPBs: xx%cѩv`fx(i>.e']/)_wx3-Wit6*%IENDB``!5a;Ǿ9!}Rh`7 1xZohE?%5D[I \hlmsZTG=&R*PRM6 FE Kk933{{#ɵ7xv{fvv p&O"<"+!ȎT-EReuQ Uo\{Ƶb’\ޖ~wGg- 4 ȮpPrH|G[bZ:YD9׏d:33"A!$V`rM HUS Tpyݸd=n9[iqQ5G)u5͚nXWrvHn<ӫr#V6x}ǭHlVشF6^*,HeqRE\jiDa# Rؔ6k\zaڹ'jH<8> շ/<^evnuƅ(WRc{Po::/NUUyN=k{Fc4\. SRȏ#<ۑZVqk 1*jVjmfqr4괬hV؇{ `1$ƅ453xcȲ8`ɗ1(5K'..BQ햵 ֋7pm-k 7o89H߄&{|v( :f7A| n6zfŨF.WtD_fH[KK3a3%;(nO  8=USS1~q󑭩EYEǜH#k#R;πЍ/+,/5_7 X `!= lS/6p6!|Qp:7 0xZ]h\Eݟd76 HhmlOXZM[lZDK]j*R|P XjbI E`I՗BTS\gޙw$.˹sss̹3s@ ?!XR RYN(nTTd]} oO?[x߂oV -wp#5Y yCp+=G!&`)J.qm{}HҀc7Te7(h>ޫ҃)B)K4/ BYlAJZ\}#*QwYaXF97Fk͚C&oRoLrSTzf)]%N7x7xs7x*Fy+Ў]\d0)bO"Hf]7[ݬT9xYř~Z_Fꦿ6 Sn ;%5+]y N=K{fX4r^,. :P (p^mO_y-8?%^Ư0j;iQC%ςBu J;\8=j(jQ؇ 5~tUmDf*FCB\WV;,hԎIXuhcbNTvScfqh '#xU pXPSa7NkQ\"n63ZT3,g%fՌhAu0o zXf{kKl킚!Ug1.=r5*}DUBDWm33E_6mߣ1qгw亶QТcb}m[ B߃Zծ%_O.;+j l'2c 1wY5}Ikp§ }|e۳xugS,hpˆp|ꢍ#jbY#EQT݁Նp5p8js_K՜w-6l^cϻ^}DТ=;/?ŋYyjwm2SԢs=N'Ѝ8\KCR*IIFǝXɮҙ=#`{O@fh}[~8;ݟi ? zDdt}/‚ڜrAosaT;yyubnwj`c%%W1.ᯭUtw)~j[|t[nF7A?F7Aan UŨ.Wt Y/FŎP'M N;iGyXB@KUܑ:8pF*^9RMNNaмEɘYE79F|FrN<ݡ_XY+WY?_Uk:g/l@S͹$$Ifh!vh55a#v#va:V l055a4ah$$Ifh!vh55a#v#va:V l055a4ah$$Ifh!vh55a#v#va:V l055a4ah$$Ifh!vh55a#v#va:V l055a4ah$$Ifh!vh55a#v#va:V l055a4ahDyK http://ustimss.msu.edu/yK 0http://ustimss.msu.edu/Dd tB  S A? 2^rيk' 8`!^rيk'DtD/x?hdEg6 bq6fl "ID?N0.`'I!^H.UN $v*>ߛ̼o@o>o|nvqvo'gSV^o+(W2'|zUojuCy_ˣgٿ)CC z=dnk%7˫'o]+c) )OTkȍm72Iq7>s?Q^eVWD[ʯJ+LEerb*q+MJW.&"Tr=[I]y|=0+uΓimu8r:Wп4K/:ϔ9 *ţNf_CO ?2g\grb?Ͼ,_!\ h-A,:sXsS+'!57#0Wkn'ŕfx%`17Cfs)+\@WfHMH{07$nZsږMc+"?s30WH?s30W~\4wǭ9Zv9XssR91JpŚ+$XsW욛ެgl ssZs}c.m΍$7&8s%\c9[s"m9~ʎ230W ?s30W*?seg`L<{n-Bޜ5#k.']s)cM5 {e̍AW܄`n9W\%p s[qJ[hrlnnr0Wf~f U?sUg`~*g`R~檸v_5+\qW 9x\ܵ;`rm܁57K͕|}\kK$kVrSqf)XqI?YoN |7ŪSc_}O(:G>|<'q{^gc9KC[l mq0C[m;)ǂ?}17MMx9{@uB-9j)H-jQ[AjP:RpE -n) j,5 5OuGuB:j7HQAc{ ޸q j&Zjd:ZpBZ Բ2ᨍ AmGmmB9j/H^QGAPg: Rgte$T"H▚!jcjQAjPQ"H B:j6H:jlȾnwKN$$If!v h555T5T5T5T5T5T5 T5 T#v#v#v T:V 800555 T44 8 kdV $$If80 p  lh!TTTTTTTT0((((4 8a$$If!v h555T5T5T5T5T5T5 T5 T#v#v#v T:V 8(0555 T44 8 kdO $$If8( p  lh!TTTTTTTT0(((  !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~      !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~      !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~      !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~      !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~      !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~      !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~2$1 !"#l&'()*+,-./0y3456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijkznopqrstuvwx }~Root Entry% F}o"Data MWordDocument$ ObjectPool' ੯n"}o"_1089889304 F੯n"੯n"Ole PRINT8CompObjf  #$%'()*+,-0345789:;<=?@ABCDEFGHJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXZ FMicrosoft Excel WorksheetBiff8Excel.Sheet.89q Oh+'08@Th  Paul Wilson Paul WilsonMicrosoft Excel@3!     ]''  ' \' \Arial-  2  Q' 2 U1 2 2 2 3 2 4 2 E5 2 6 2 7 2 y8 2 59 2 F Mean) 2 F2.32 2 F2.39 2 F2.48 2 FC2.55 2 F2.33 2 F1.75 2 Fw2.12 2 F32.68 2 F1.82 2 1&2! 2 65%, 2 57%, 2 52%, 2 A47%, 2 63%, 2 90%, 2 u71%, 2 137%, 2 84%, 2  Q' 2 910 2 11 2 12 2 m13 2 )14 2 15 2 16 2 ]17 2 18 2 F Mean) 2 F1.78 2 F2.70 2 F2.73 2 FC2.39 2 F3.03 2 F1.83 2 Fw3.24 2 F32.07 2 F2.12 2  1&2! 2  83%, 2 37%, 2 36%, 2 A52%, 2 23%, 2 88%, 2 u14%, 2 168%, 2 78%, 2  Q' 2 919 2 20 2 21 2 m22 2 )23 2 24 2 25 2 ]26 2 27 2 F Mean) 2 F2.95 2 F1.79 2 F2.99 2 FC1.46 2 F3.23 2 F1.61 2 Fw2.76 2 F32.13 2 F3.02 2  1&2! 2  25%, 2 83%, 2 25%, 2 A91%, 2 21%, 2 86%, 2 u33%, 2 162%, 2 21%, 2  Q' 2 928 2 29 2 30 2 m31 2 )32 2 33 2 34 2 ]35 2 36 2 F Mean) 2 F3.21 2 F2.05 2 F3.30 2 FC2.95 2 F3.01 2 F2.65 2 Fw3.01 2 F32.74 2 F2.70 2  1&2! 2  16%, 2 66%, 2 11%, 2 A29%, 2 23%, 2 42%, 2 u24%, 2 135%, 2 34%, 2  Q' 2 937 2 38 2 39 2 m40 2 )41 2 42 2 43 2 ]44 2 45 2 F Mean) 2 F1.99 2 F3.46 2 F2.54 2 FC2.35 2 F1.33 2 F2.35 2 Fw1.76 2 F31.74 2 F2.87 2  1&2! 2  65%, 2 9%, 2 41%, 2 A55%, 2 87%, 2 54%, 2 u75%, 2 175%, 2 28%,"System-'- ]-  "- "- !-- !-xx- !x-44- !4-- !-- !-hh- !h-$$- !$-- !-- !-XX- !X-]- !X-@@]- !X@-]- !X-]- !X-]- !X-@@]- !X@-]- !X-]- !X-]- !X-@@]- !X@-]- !X-]- !X-]- !X-@@]- !X@-]- !X-]- !X-]- !X-@@]- !X@-]- !X-]- !X--'- \'ObjInfo Workbook%SummaryInformation( DocumentSummaryInformation8 A\p Paul Wilson Ba= =--<X@"1Arial1Arial1Arial1Arial""#,##0;\-""#,##0""#,##0;[Red]\-""#,##0""#,##0.00;\-""#,##0.00#""#,##0.00;[Red]\-""#,##0.005*0_-""* #,##0_-;\-""* #,##0_-;_-""* "-"_-;_-@_-,)'_-* #,##0_-;\-* #,##0_-;_-* "-"_-;_-@_-=,8_-""* #,##0.00_-;\-""* #,##0.00_-;_-""* "-"??_-;_-@_-4+/_-* #,##0.00_-;\-* #,##0.00_-;_-* "-"??_-;_-@_-                + ) , *   0@ @  @ @  4@ @   4@ @  $@ @ ` Sheet1,QMean1&2 t0 T0 b b    @bb b  (Н0  b4bblA bP'pblAA?l bazp0@bb@0sT0 b0sT0o$b&p@S0bt00 t0sT01U? &N[?#X0? c?sK?@i ?tK=?i ?v@i? 0Ҏ? <$@&@(@*@,@.@0@1@2@ A#?mY@s@1@g,A@Zd;O?R? @!@ w@ l(?{nS?.q?#X?%N?^Cy 5?+F?[? y 5? <3@4@5@6@7@8@9@:@;@  ]-@ e? (EL@ Cl? B`" @ s? d7 @ Y @ Z"1@  a+? ~-q? a+? 1Ҏ#? a+F? %N? S8? I;V ? a+F?  < <@=@>@?@@@@@A@A@B@  )X @ $Ec@ i_ @ 1_rd@ -~g@ c7@ e7@ CC,@ I{@ &N[?P^Cy ?(?l(?sK?w@i?%N?i ? X0Ҏ? <B@C@C@D@D@E@E@F@F@  ?A @0>N@l'm@{y7?" Y@sB?utӛ? 4챏@ tK=?Cy 5?a+F?k(?=ĩ?#X?Y0Ҏ?Y0Ҏ? V c?*V hNNNNN>@? ?  ՜.+,D՜.+, PXd lt| 1j Sheet1  Worksheets 6> _PID_GUIDAN{3C3CBD68-7AF8-11D6-9A1E-CEBB88B73A4B}(4 8a$$If!v h555T5T5T5T5T5T5 T5 T#v#v#v T:V 8(0555 T44 8 kdH$$If8( p  lh!TTTTTTTT0((((4 8a$$If!v h555T5T5T5T5T5T5 T5 T#v#v#v T:V 8(0555 T44 8 kdA$$If8( p  lh!TTTTTTTT0((((4 8a$$If!v h555T5T5T5T5T5T5 T5 T#v#v#v T:V 8(0555 T44 8 kd:$$If8( p  lh!TTTTTTTT0((((4 8a$$If!v h555T5T5T5T5T5T5 T5 T#v#v#v T:V 8(0555 T44 8 kd3$$If8( p  lh!TTTTTTTT0((((4 8a$$If!v h555T5T5T5T5T5T5 T5 T#v#v#v T:V 8(0555 T44 8 kd,$$If8( p  lh!TTTTTTTT0((((4 8a$$If!v h555T5T5T5T5T5T5 T5 T#v#v#v T:V 8(0555 T44 8 kd%$$If8( p  lh!TTTTTTTT0((((4 8a$$IfM!vh555|5#v#v#v|#v:V l0555|54aM$$IfM!vh555|5#v#v#v|#v:V l0555|54aM$$IfM!vh555|5#v#v#v|#v:V l0555|54aM$$IfM!vh555|5#v#v#v|#v:V l0555|54aM$$IfM!vh555|5#v#v#v|#v:V l0555|54aM$$IfM!vh555|5#v#v#v|#v:V l0555|54aM$$IfM!vh555|5#v#v#v|#v:V l0555|54aM$$IfM!vh555|5#v#v#v|#v:V l0555|54aM$$IfM!vh555|5#v#v#v|#v:V l0555|54aM$$IfM!vh555|5#v#v#v|#v:V l0555|54aM$$IfM!vh555|5#v#v#v|#v:V l0555|54aM$$IfM!vh555|5#v#v#v|#v:V l0555|54aM$$If!vh5555#v#v:V l0554a$$If!vh5555#v#v:V l0554a$$If!vh5555#v#v:V l0554a$$If!vh5555#v#v:V l0554a$$If!vh5555#v#v:V l0554a$$If!vh5555#v#v:V l0554a$$If!vh5555#v#v:V l0554a$$IfM!vh555|5#v#v#v|#v:V l0555|54aM$$IfM!vh555|5#v#v#v|#v:V l0555|54aM$$IfM!vh555|5#v#v#v|#v:V l0555|54aM$$If!vh55555#v#v#v#v:V l055554$$If!vh55555#v#v#v#v:V l055554$$If!vh55555#v#v#v#v:V l055554$$If!vh55555#v#v#v#v:V l055554$$If!vh55555#v#v#v#v:V l055554$$If!vh55555#v#v#v#v:V l055554$$If!vh55555#v#v#v#v:V l055554$$If!vh55555#v#v#v#v#v:V l0555554a$$If!vh55555#v#v#v#v#v:V l0555554a$$If!vh55555#v#v#v#v#v:V l0555554a$$If!vh5V5V5V5W#vV#vW:V l05V5W4a$$If!vh5V5V5V5W#vV#vW:V l05V5W4a$$If!vh5V5V5V5W#vV#vW:V l05V5W4a#$$IfP!v h5585859585859585 85 95 9#v#v8#v9#v8#v9#v 8#v 9:V l05585958595 85 94aP,kd<$$Ifl Q 3k $88988988990,,,,4 laP#$$IfP!v h5585859585859585 85 95 9#v#v8#v9#v8#v9#v 8#v 9:V l05585958595 85 94aP,kdY?$$Ifl Q 3k $88988988990,,,,4 laP#$$IfP!v h5585859585859585 85 95 9#v#v8#v9#v8#v9#v 8#v 9:V l05585958595 85 94aP,kdB$$Ifl Q 3k $88988988990,,,,4 laP$$IfP!v h5585859585859585 85 95 9#v#v8#v9#v8#v9#v 8#v 9:V l05585958595 84aP,kdE$$Ifl Q 3k $88988988880,,,,4 laP$$IfP!v h5585859585859585 85 95 9#v#v8#v9#v8#v9#v 8#v 9:V l05585958595 84aP,kdJI$$Ifl Q 3k $88988988880,,,,4 laP$$IfP!v h5585859585859585 85 95 9#v#v8#v9#v8#v9#v 8#v 9:V l05585958595 84aP,kdL$$Ifl Q 3k $88988988880,,,,4 laP$$If!vh55555#v:V l054$$If!vh55555#v:V l054$$If!vh55555#v:V l054$$Ifh!vh5555#v#v:V l0554ah$$Ifh!vh5555#v#v:V l0554ah$$Ifh!vh5555#v#v:V l0554ah$$Ifh!vh5555#v#v:V l0554ah$$Ifh!vh5555#v#v:V l0554ah$$Ifh!vh5555#v#v:V l0554ah$$Ifh!vh5555#v#v:V l0554ah$$Ifh!vh5555#v#v:V l0554ah$$Ifh!vh5555#v#v:V l0554ah$$Ifh!vh5555#v#v:V l0554ah$$Ifh!vh5555#v#v:V l0554ah$$Ifh!vh5555#v#v:V l0554ah$$Ifh!vh5555#v#v:V l0554ah$$Ifh!vh5555#v#v:V l0554ah$$Ifh!vh5555#v#v:V l0554ah$$If!vh5h555555#vh#v#v:V l05h554$$If!vh5h555555#vh#v#v:V l05h554$$If!vh5h555555#vh#v#v:V l05h554$$If!v h5x5Y5Y5Y5Z5Y5Y5Y5 Z#vx#vY#vZ#vY#v Z:V l05x5Y5Z5Y5 Z4$$If!v h5x5Y5Y5Y5Z5Y5Y5Y5 Z#vx#vY#vZ#vY#v Z:V l05x5Y5Z5Y5 Z4$$If!v h5x5Y5Y5Y5Z5Y5Y5Y5 Z#vx#vY#vZ#vY#v Z:V l05x5Y5Z5Y5 Z4$$If!v h555555555 5 #v#v#v#v #v :V l d05555 5 4pdkd`$$Ifl O >.x  d0((((4 lapd$$If!v h555555555 5 #v#v#v#v #v :V l05555 5 4kde$$Ifl O >.x 0((((4 la$$If!v h555555555 5 #v#v#v#v #v :V l05555 5 4kdh$$Ifl O >.x 0((((4 la$$If!v h555555555 5 #v#v#v#v #v :V l05555 5 4kdk$$Ifl O >.x 0((((4 la$$If!v h555555555 5 #v#v#v#v #v :V l05555 5 / 4kdn$$Ifl O >.x 0((((4 la$$If!v h555555555 5 #v#v#v#v #v :V l d05555 5 4pdkdq$$Ifl O >.x  d0((((4 lapd$$If!v h555555555 5 #v#v#v#v #v :V l05555 5 4kdkv$$Ifl O >.x 0((((4 la$$If!v h555555555 5 #v#v#v#v #v :V l05555 5 4kdoy$$Ifl O >.x 0((((4 la$$If!v h555555555 5 #v#v#v#v #v :V l05555 5 4kds|$$Ifl O >.x 0((((4 la$$If!v h555555555 5 #v#v#v#v #v :V l05555 5 / 4kdw$$Ifl O >.x 0((((4 la$$If!v h555555555 5 #v#v#v#v #v :V l d05555 5 4_1086458515 F੯n"੯n"Ole PRINT m<CompObjf3      ''  ' ' Arial-  2  Q! 2 1 2 2 2 K3 2 4 2 5 2 6 2 7 2 M8 2 9 2 8 Mean# 2 82.27  2 8w2.33  2 82.38  2 82.56  2 8E2.30  2 81.72  2 8y1.95  2 82.60  2 81.76  2 l 1&2 2 l68%% 2 lu61%% 2 l59%% 2 l46%% 2 lC65%% 2 l92%% 2 lw79%% 2 l42%% 2 l88%% 2 Q! 2 10 2 11 2 412 2 13 2 h14 2 15 2 16 2 617 2 18 2  Mean# 2 1.70  2 w2.68  2 2.58  2 2.40  2 E2.79  2 1.76  2 y3.18  2 1.99  2 2.11  2 < 1&2 2 <90%% 2 <u39%% 2 <48%% 2 <52%% 2 <C31%% 2 <92%% 2 <w12%% 2 <72%% 2 <80%% 2  Q! 2 19 2 20 2 421 2 22 2 h23 2 24 2 25 2 626 2 27 2  Mean# 2 2.69  2 w1.64  2 3.17  2 1.39  2 E2.98  2 1.72  2 y2.81  2 2.41  2 2.63  2  1&2 2 37%% 2 u89%% 2 15%% 2 93%% 2 C27%% 2 89%% 2 w29%% 2 59%% 2 35%% 2 t Q! 2 t28 2 t29 2 t430 2 t31 2 th32 2 t33 2 t34 2 t635 2 t36 2  Mean# 2 2.92  2 w1.84  2 3.40  2 2.88  2 E2.92  2 2.48  2 y2.80  2 2.46  2 2.67  2  1&2 2 30%% 2 u85%% 2 10%% 2 31%% 2 C31%% 2 48%% 2 w40%% 2 55%% 2 37%% 2 D Q! 2 D37 2 D38 2 D439 2 D40 2 Dh41 2 D42 2 D43 2 D644 2 D45 2 x Mean# 2 x1.95  2 xw3.30  2 x2.45  2 x2.24  2 xE1.34  2 x2.30  2 xy1.71  2 x1.71  2 x2.68  2  1&2 2 75%% 2 u16%% 2 52%% 2 67%% 2 C94%% 2 60%% 2 w84%% 2 84%% 2 40%%"System-'- -  "- "- !-- !-44- !4-- !-hh- !h-- !-- !-66- !6-- !-jj- !j-- !-- !-44- !4-hh- !h-- !-- !-- !-88- !8-ll- !l-- !-- !-- !-<<- !<-pp- !p-- !-- !-  - ! -@@- !@-tt- !t-- !-- !--'- ' FMicrosoft Excel WorksheetBiff8Excel.Sheet.89q Oh+'08@Th  Paul Wilson Paul WilsonMicrosoft Excel@ ՜.+,D՜.+,ObjInfoWorkbook|2SummaryInformation(DocumentSummaryInformation8 A\p Paul Wilson Ba= =--<X@"1Arial1Arial1Arial1Arial""#,##0;\-""#,##0""#,##0;[Red]\-""#,##0""#,##0.00;\-""#,##0.00#""#,##0.00;[Red]\-""#,##0.005*0_-""* #,##0_-;\-""* #,##0_-;_-""* "-"_-;_-@_-,)'_-* #,##0_-;\-* #,##0_-;_-* "-"_-;_-@_-=,8_-""* #,##0.00_-;\-""* #,##0.00_-;_-""* "-"??_-;_-@_-4+/_-* #,##0.00_-;\-* #,##0.00_-;_-* "-"??_-;_-@_-                + ) , *    @ @  $@ @   $@ @ ` Sheet1,QMean1&2 2YHUDOOh:'t0D>K6 @@P^  R1bQDO\VHGYHUVLRQ[OV ",%Ў\p)(Н00 b4bblA bPqblAA?P:c bazp0R1bbR1Pq8blAA?P:chbR1S0bt00bk0sT0@?@@@@@A@A@B@   ~)]@ Fv(l? Gs4 @ սC@ "U@ u_J@ jWv%j@ oX@ UUUUUU@ hK?'쪉*?:bο?bNظ?bNظ? 3zŒ?4f̅?rƝ? @_ ? <B@C@C@D@D@E@E@F@F@ Fv(l8?\&9e @@Qh- @WKz?َ2n@=ѨW?ش,M? @=Sx@ @_ ?YS@  PXd lt| 1j Sheet1  Worksheets 6> _PID_GUIDAN{3C3CBD68-7AF8-11D6-9A1E-CEBB88B73A4B} FMicrosoft Excel WorksheetBipdkd$$Ifl O >.x  d0((((4 lapd$$If!v h555555555 5 #v#v#v#v #v :V l05555 5 4kdW$$Ifl O >.x 0((((4 la$$If!v h555555555 5 #v#v#v#v #v :V l05555 5 4kd[$$Ifl O >.x 0((((4 la$$If!v h555555555 5 #v#v#v#v #v :V l05555 5 4kd_$$Ifl O >.x 0((((4 la$$If!v h555555555 5 #v#v#v#v #v :V l05555 5 4kdc$$Ifl O >.x 0((((4 laDd B  S A? 2ӣ2JހIl8`!ӣ2JހIl> DtD/x=lEwN8D Uη;{.@BȩR !MAG(DʒMGsVR9H.h-ّΛ7;>."9Yfwv٨BL4SAW\sGUE0YMߖjʥ@=Vы&MoU'sM-ʟ'so,}U5WPk.nzcie܈-+u[C?/ *k(Tv wǧ`IhVhQ87n}x#SءXiU>wi,$,ύ&Gh/$={&䳧2/90&ML7>XSTnNG喻+c%ҶҰ@G+ձn宂±T.A*<:Img4g~N&i~2yDLiugn g47fiN+]V\ yӬuz++ܼ7jĊ5W4s`n?9C7b Y,Fͽ̽-Q(307 ̍Qg`n307J ̍ynn97!lYsn [#hg"͹[ܨsn*hnGݵtԈ]kn 4ssMs07b07b9K]k{=FYm{~\:30W I$$Ifl Q 3k $88988988880,,,,4 laP$$If!vh55555#v:V l054$$If!vh55555#v:V l054$$If!vh55555#v:V l054$$Ifh!vh5555#v#v:V l0554ah$$Ifh!vh5555#v#v:V l0554ah$$Ifh!vh5555#v#v:V l0554ah$$Ifh!vh5555#v#v:V l0554ah$$Ifh!vh5555#v#v:V l0554ah$$Ifh!vh5555#v#v:V l0554ah$$Ifh!vh5555#v#v:V l0554ah$$Ifh!vh5555#v#v:V l0554ah$$Ifh!vh5555#v#v:V l0554ah$$Ifh!vh5555#v#v:V l0554ah$$Ifh!vh5555#v#v:V l0554ah$$Ifh!vh5555#v#v:V l0554ah$$Ifh!vh5555#v#v:V l0554ah$$Ifh!vh5555#v#v:V l0554ah$$Ifh!vh5555#v#v:V l0554ah$$If!vh5h555555#vh#v#v:V l05h554$$If!vh5h555555#vh#v#v:V l05h554$$If!vh5h555555#vh#v#v:V l05h554$$If!v h5x5Y5Y5Y5Z5Y5Y5Y5 Z#vx#vY#vZ#vY#v Z:V l05x5Y5Z5Y5 Z4$$If!v h5x5Y5Y5Y5Z5Y5Y5Y5 Z#vx#vY#vZ#vY#v Z:V l05x5Y5Z5Y5 Z4$$If!v h5x5Y5Y5Y5Z5Y5Y5Y5 Z#vx#vY#vZ#vY#v Z:V l05x5Y5Z5Y5 Z4$$If!v h555555555 5 #v#v#v#v #v :V l d05555 5 4pdkdZ$$Ifl O >.x  d0((((4 lapd$$If!v h555555555 5 #v#v#v#v #v :V l05555 5 4kd($$Ifl O >.x 0((((4 la$$If!v h555555555 5 #v#v#v#v #v :V l05555 5 4kd,$$Ifl O >.x 0((((4 la$$If!v h555555555 5 #v#v#v#v #v :V l05555 5 4kd0$$Ifl O >.x 0((((4 la$$If!v h555555555 5 #v#v#v#v #v :V l05555 5 / 4kd4$$Ifl O >.x 0((((4 la$$If!v h555555555 5 #v#v#v#v #v :V l d05555 5 4pdkdF$$Ifl O >.x  d0((((4 lapd$$If!v h555555555 5 #v#v#v#v #v :V l05555 5 4kd$$Ifl O >.x 0((((4 la$$If!v h555555555 5 #v#v#v#v #v :V l05555 5 4kd$$Ifl O >.x 0((((4 la$$If!v h555555555 5 #v#v#v#v #v :V l05555 p  45 !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123HI789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGnKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklm qrstuvwxyz{|}~ 5 4kd$$Ifl O >.x 0((((4 la$$If!v h555555555 5 #v#v#v#v #v :V l05555 5 / 4kd $$Ifl O >.x 0((((4 la$$If!v h555555555 5 #v#v#v#v #v :V l d05555 5 4pdkd2 $$Ifl O >.x  d0((((4 lapd$$If!v h555555555 5 #v#v#v#v #v :V l05555 5 4kd$$Ifl O >.x 0((((4 la$$If!v h555555555 5 #v#v#v#v #v :V l05555 5 4kd$$Ifl O >.x 0((((4 la$$If!v h555555555 5 #v#v#v#v #v :V l05555 5 4kd$$Ifl O >.x 0((((4 la$$If!v h555555555 5 #v#v#v#v #v :V l05555 5 4kd $$Ifl O >.x 0((((4 la$$If!vh55^5^5^5_#v#v^#v_:V l055^5_4a$$If!vh55^5^5^5_#v#v^#v_:V l055^5_4a$$If!vh55^5^5^5_#v#v^#v_:V l055^5_4a$$If!vh55^5^5^5_#v#v^#v_:V l055^5_4a$$If!vh55^5^5^5_#v#v^#v_:V l055^5_4a$$If!vh55^5^5^5_#v#v^#v_:V l055^5_4a$$If!vh55^5^5^5_#v#v^#v_:V l055^5_4a$$If!vh55^5^5^5_#v#v^#v_:V l055^5_4a$$If!vh55^5^5^5_#v#v^#v_:V l055^5_4a$$If!vh55^5^5^5_#v#v^#v_:V l055^5_4a$$If!vh55^5^5^5_#v#v^#v_:V l055^5_4a$$If!vh55^5^5^5_#v#v^#v_:V l055^5_4a$$If!vh55^5^5^5_#v#v^#v_:V l055^5_4a$$If!vh55^5^5^5_#v#v^#v_:V l055^5_4a$$If!vh55^5^5^5_#v#v^#v_:V l055^5_4a$$If!vh55^5^5^5_#v#v^#v_:V l055^5_4a$$If!vh55^5^5^5_#v#v^#v_:V l055^5_4a$$If!vh55^5^5^5_#v#v^#v_:V l055^5_4a$$If!vh55^5^5^5_#v#v^#v_:V l055^5_4a$$If!v h555555555 5 #v#v#v#v #v :V l d05555 5 4pdkdc($$Ifl O >.x  d0((((4 lapd$$If!v h555555555 5 #v#v#v#v #v :V l05555 5 4kd1-$$Ifl O >.x 0((((4 la$$If!v h555555555 5 #v#v#v#v #v :V l05555 5 4kd50$$Ifl O >.x 0((((4 la$$If!v h555555555 5 #v#v#v#v #v :V l05555 5 4kd93$$Ifl O >.x 0((((4 la$$If!v h555555555 5 #v#v#v#v #v :V l05555 5 / 4kd=6$$Ifl O >.x 0((((4 la$$If!v h555555555 5 #v#v#v#v #v :V l d05555 5 4pdkdO9$$Ifl O >.x  d0((((4 lapd$$If!v h555555555 5 #v#v#v#v #v :V l05555 5 4kd>$$Ifl O >.x 0((((4 la$$If!v h555555555 5 #v#v#v#v #v :V l05555 5 4kd!A$$Ifl O >.x 0((((4 la$$If!v h555555555 5 #v#v#v#v #v :V l05555 5 4kd%D$$Ifl O >.x 0((((4 la$$If!v h555555555 5 #v#v#v#v #v :V l05555 5 / 4kd)G$$Ifl O >.x 0((((4 la$$If!v h555555555 5 #v#v#v#v #v :V l d05555 5 4pdkd;J$$Ifl O >.x  d0((((4 lapd$$If!v h555555555 5 #v#v#v#v #v :V l05555 5 4kd O$$Ifl O >.x 0((((4 la$$If!v h555555555 5 #v#v#v#v #v :V l05555 5 4kd R$$Ifl O >.x 0((((4 la$$If!v h555555555 5 #v#v#v#v #v :V l05555 5 4kdU$$Ifl O >.x 0((((4 la$$If!v h555555555 5 #v#v#v#v #v :V l05555 5 4kdX$$Ifl O >.x 0((((4 la$$If!vh55555#v#v#v#v#v:V l0555554a$$If!vh55555#v#v#v#v#v:V l0555554a$$If!vh55555#v#v#v#v#v:V l0555554a$$If!vh55555#v#v#v#v#v:V l0555554a$$If!vh55555#v#v#v#v#v:V l0555554a$$If!vh5V5V5V5W#vV#vW:V l05V5W4a$$If!vh5V5V5V5W#vV#vW:V l05V5W4a$$If!vh5V5V5V5W#vV#vW:V l05V5W4a$$If!vh5V5V5V5W#vV#vW:V l05V5W4a$$If!vh5V5V5V5W#vV#vW:V l05V5W4a#$$IfP!v h5585859585859585 85 95 9#v#v8#v9#v8#v9#v 8#v 9:V l05585958595 85 94aP,kdb$$Ifl Q 3k $88988988990,,,,4 laP#$$IfP!v h5585859585859585 85 95 9#v#v8#v9#v8#v9#v 8#v 9:V l05585958595 85 94aP,kde$$Ifl Q 3k $88988988990,,,,4 laP#$$IfP!v h5585859585859585 85 95 9#v#v8#v9#v8#v9#v 8#v 9:V l05585958595 85 94aP,kd?i$$Ifl Q 3k $88988988990,,,,4 laP#$$IfP!v h5585859585859585 85 95 9#v#v8#v9#v8#v9#v 8#v 9:V l05585958595 85 94aP,kdl$$Ifl Q 3k $88988988990,,,,4 laP#$$IfP!v h5585859585859585 85 95 9#v#v8#v9#v8#v9#v 8#v 9:V l05585958595 85 94aP,kdo$$Ifl Q 3k $88988988990,,,,4 laP$$IfP!v h5585859585859585 85 95 9#v#v8#v9#v8#v9#v 8#v 9:V l05585958595 84aP,kd8s$$Ifl Q 3k $88988988880,,,,4 laP$$IfP!v h5585859585859585 85 95 9#v#v8#v9#v8#v9#v 8#v 9:V l05585958595 84aP,kdv$$Ifl Q 3k $88988988880,,,,4 laP$$IfP!v h5585859585859585 85 95 9#v#v8#v9#v8#v9#v 8#v 9:V l05585958595 84aP,kdy$$Ifl Q 3k $88988988880,,,,4 laP$$IfP!v h5585859585859585 85 95 9#v#v8#v9#v8#v9#v 8#v 9:V l05585958595 84aP,kd}$$Ifl Q 3k $88988988880,,,,4 laP$$IfP!v h5585859585859585 85 95 9#v#v8#v9#v8#v9#v 8#v 9:V l05585958595 84aP,kdd$$Ifl Q 3k $88988988880,,,,4 laP$$If!vh55555#v:V l0_1085417055 Fn"dn"Ole PRINT \"CompObjfd'" ) <    ''  Arial-Arial---Arial-----"System-'-   "--   "---'---  - "-  $II "-II "-I-IIOOTTIIVIVIV2I2VIV]I]VI---'--- ---'--- V---'--- SH-Z-  "-  $PZdZP---'-- - S $---'-- - S  $  ---'-- - Se $e oe [e ---'-- - SN $DNXND---'-- - S $---'-- - S $  ---'-- - S $"---'-- - S~ $~~t~---'-- - S/r $r%|/r9h/r%---'-- - S $ &  ---'-- - S5 $+5? 5+---'-- - S $~---'-- - S  $  ---'-- - S $---'-- - So $oyoeo---'-- - ST $J T^TJ---'-- - SK $KUK AK---'-- - SIH- "-   S?---'---  S R \H---'---  S ---'---  S ---'---  SO2 Y<E(---'---  S} s---'---  S ---'---  S ---'---  ST] ^gJS---'---  S   ---'---  S ---'---  S---'---  V---'---   ---'---  ---'---  L---'---  IH- "-  I ---'---  L---'---   ------'---  ~ %  <2 3#Section 1 Likert Positive Responses!!$----'---   ---'---   ---'---   ----'---     2 00%% 2 20%% 2 640%% 2 60%% 2 ;80%% 2 }100%%---'---   ---'---     2 m0%% 2 ms20%% 2 m 40%% 2 m60%% 2 m480%% 2 m100%%---'---   ------'---  H  2 N2001----'---   -----'---  Ww- Arial- 2 Q7TIMSS- ----'---   ---'---    "-  H-   - - '   '  'ff8Excel.Sheet.89q Oh+'08@Th  Paul Wilson Paul WilsonMicrosoft Excel@y< ՜.+,D՜.+,@ PXd lt|ObjInfo!Workbook(SummaryInformation("DocumentSummaryInformation8& A\p Paul Wilson Ba==S<X@"1Arial1Arial1Arial1Arial1Arial1Arial1Arial1Arial1Arial1Arial1Arial1Arial""#,##0;\-""#,##0""#,##0;[Red]\-""#,##0""#,##0.00;\-""#,##0.00#""#,##0.00;[Red]\-""#,##0.005*0_-""* #,##0_-;\-""* #,##0_-;_-""* "-"_-;_-@_-,)'_-* #,##0_-;\-* #,##0_-;_-* "-"_-;_-@_-=,8_-""* #,##0.00_-;\-""* #,##0.00_-;_-""* "-"??_-;_-@_-4+/_-* #,##0.00_-;\-* #,##0.00_-;_-* "-"??_-;_-@_-                + ) , *  ` Chart1Sheet16&Sheet2'Sheet3,uUCMy DocumentsEdDDissertationAppendicesAppendix 7.2 2001 Section 1 and TIMSS.xlsSheet1Sheet2Sheet3YZ&N[?#X0?!c?sK?@i ?tK=?i ?v@i?0Ҏ?l(?{nS?.q?#X?%N?^Cy 5?+F?[?y 5?ZHzG?Q?q= ףp?\(\?Q?\(\?Q?333333?Q?Q?\(\?333333?333333?RQ?\(\?(\??(\?YYZR3  @@  _4E4D$% M 3O& 1bM 3O(Н0Q b4bblA b(tblAA?a bazp01bb10sT0 b0sT0@s$bЛt1S0bt00? (\ A  dMbP?_*+%"FK??0sU(  v  <NMM?]`  A"??3`  `  `  `  @3d23 M NM4 3QQ ;Q ;Q3_4E4  3QQQQ3_4E4D$% M 3O&Q4$% M 3O&Q4FAZw 3Ot 3*??#M43*???#M4% 9XM 3O &Q  2001'4% ^MZ3O-&Q TIMSS'4523  43d" 3_ M NM  MM<444% R TM03O&Q J#Section 1 Likert Positive Responses'44e&N[?#X0??!c??sK?333333?@i ??tK=??i ?333333?v@i?ffffff?0Ҏ?? l(? ? {nS? ? .q? #X? %N?^Cy 5?+F?[?y 5?eHzG?Q??q= ףp??\(\?333333?Q??\(\??Q?333333?333333?ffffff?Q?? Q? ? \(\? ? 333333? 333333? RQ?\(\?(\??(\?e >@ A  dMbP?_*+%"??rU>@ A  dMbP?_*+%"??rU>@ 1j Sheet1Sheet2Sheet3Chart1  WorksheetsCharts 6> _PID_GUIDAN{37369285-7E38-11D6-9A1E-E5137A2F0F4B} FMicrosoft Excel WorksheetBi_1089894855 Fdn"dn"Ole .PRINT 6\"CompObj/fF'" ) <   ''  Arial-Arial---Arial-----"System-'-  "--  } "---'--- - "-  $=== "-=== "-==--=W-W=-=---=-=-====TT---'--- }---'--- 0---'--- 0 --  "-  $---'-- - 0Z $ZgZMZ---'-- - 0?J $J2W?JL=?J2---'-- - 0 $rr---'-- - 0 $u---'-- - 0m $mzm`m---'-- - 0F $9FSF9---'-- - 0  $  ---'-- - 0FL $L9YFLS?FL9---'-- - 0k\ $\^ik\xOk\^---'-- - 0 $rr---'-- - 0s $fssf---'-- - 0  $  ---'-- - 0pM $McZpM}@pMc---'-- - 0u $uuhu---'-- - 0 $!---'-- - 0 $---'-- - 07 $*7D7*---'-- - 0=- "-   J0---'---  0 ---'---  0W dJ---'---  0 H U;---'---  0 ---'---  0x k---'---  0-T :a G---'---  0 ---'---  0 ---'---  0N_ [lAR---'---  0 ---'---  0---'---  0---'---  ---'---  }---'---  =---'---  = -  "-  = ---'---  =---'---  ------'---  ,  <2 <#Section 1 Likert Positive Responses(!!%%!%!!(%!!!+!!%%%!!!----'---  ---'---  ---'---  ----'---    2 0%, 2 920%, 2 40%, 2 60%, 2 z80%, 2 100%,---'---  ---'---    2 0%, 2 20%, 2 o40%, 2 "60%, 2 80%, 2 x100%,---'---  ------'---  9S  2 a2002----'---  -----'---  $5 Arial- 2 ATIMSS- ----'---  ---'---   "-   -   }- - '  '  'ff8Excel.Sheet.89q Oh+'0@H\p  Paul Wilson Paul WilsonMicrosoft Excel@@( ՜.+,D՜.+,@ PXd lt|ObjInfo"1WorkbookJGSummaryInformation(!#2DocumentSummaryInformation86 A\p Paul Wilson Ba=3 =D<X@"1 Arial1 Arial1 Arial1 Arial1 Arial1 Arial1 Arial1 Arial1 Arial1 Arial1 Arial1 Arial""#,##0;\-""#,##0""#,##0;[Red]\-""#,##0""#,##0.00;\-""#,##0.00#""#,##0.00;[Red]\-""#,##0.005*0_-""* #,##0_-;\-""* #,##0_-;_-""* "-"_-;_-@_-,)'_-* #,##0_-;\-* #,##0_-;_-* "-"_-;_-@_-=,8_-""* #,##0.00_-;\-""* #,##0.00_-;_-""* "-"??_-;_-@_-4+/_-* #,##0.00_-;\-* #,##0.00_-;_-* "-"??_-;_-@_-                + ) , *               0   ` Chart1\Sheet1ESheet2FSheet3,ZR3  @@  R1&2TIMSSz propsig*Section 1 results 2002 compared with TIMSS dTbe  (\ A  dMbP?_*+%MHP DeskJet 690C Series v11.0: d,,HP DeskJet 690C Series v11.0LPT1 ,," d,,??U} ..T0.b..... .b .b .b . ..fb.bp.f.T.T.b..bO `-b-xH@?@@@@@@ @"@$@&@(@*@,@.@0@1@2<-x?C@C@?@9@D@]@@W@4@@_@ a@@@(@N@*@@[@*@Z@><-x@@g@@d@d@_@e@g@d@]@d@d@X@@b@\@V@h@:@@`@`m<-x@@S@Z@[@a@S@6@M@`c@<@8@ a@@a@]@e@0@@f@@Q@I<-x@:@5@6@@@>@@$@?@&@ @N@@@B@G@ @\@2@"<-  R~? e"n? ihK? tE2? YS@5@D@P< -x @.@8@@D@0@@@K@@&@B@*@G@F@@H@2@< -x@@@?&@@@.@@@0@@7@@7@@?<- rS@Q@W@H@@T@X@V@>@V@U@H@@U@>@I@X@=@T@@W<-~ ?@ D@ D@ D@ D@ D@ D @ D "@ D $@ D  &@ D  (@ D  *@ D ,@ D .@ D0@ D1@ D2@ D~ H@R~?D e"n?D ihK?D tE2?D YS@V@U@H@@U@>@I@X@=@T@@W@#t@ %#t@ %#pt@ %#`t@ %#Pt@ %#t@ %#t@ %#@t@ %# t@ % # t@ % # pt@ % # t@ % # Pt@ % #0t@ %#t@ %#t@ %#@t@ %#Pt@ % R+S}<DDD?DD?ROkfg<DDD?DD?R ͷW 6<DDD?DD?RKZ<DDD?DD?Rښ?<DDD?DD?RH <DDD?DD?R{ф[<DDD?DD?R^@ <DDD?DD?R  /S <D D D ?D D ?R '+^.? <D D D ?D D ?R v+ǩ$  <D D D ?D D ?R %632 <D D D ?D D ?R 8;Ȅ!@<D D D ?D D ?RP u<DDD?DD?R)?!<DDD?DD?RS'<DDD?DD?RPXS<<DDD?DD?R )#I"<DDD?DD?                     ,)|rfk<(  v  <NMM? 3]`A  AMHP DeskJet 690C Series v11.0: d,,HP DeskJet 690C Series v11.0LPT1 ,," d,,??3`  `  `  `  3d23 M NM4 3QQ ;Q ;Q3_4E4  3QQQQ3_4E4 3QQQQ3_ O NM  MM<4JK4D$% M 3O&Q4$% M 3O&Q4FA\x 3Ot 3*??#M43*???#M4% 4YM 3O &Q  2002'4% cMZ3O-&Q TIMSS'4523  43d" 3_ M NM  MM<444% R UM03O&Q J#Section 1 Likert Positive Responses'44e??333333???333333?ffffff??  ?  ?   e??333333???333333?ffffff??  ?  ?   e >@""" A  dMbP?_*+%"??rU>@ A  dMbP?_*+%"??rU>@ 1j Sheet1Sheet2Sheet3Chart1  WorksheetsCharts 6> _PID_GUIDAN{586695A0-7B26-11D6-9A1E-9400974B344B}Oh+'0`  54$$If!vh55555#v:V l054$$If!vh55555#v:V l054$$If!vh55555#v:V l054$$If!vh55555#v:V l054$$Ifh!vh5555#v#v:V l0554ah$$Ifh!vh5555#v#v:V l0554ah$$Ifh!vh5555#v#v:V l0554ah$$Ifh!vh5555#v#v:V l0554ah$$Ifh!vh5555#v#v:V l0554ah$$Ifh!vh5555#v#v:V l0554ah$$Ifh!vh5555#v#v:V l0554ah$$Ifh!vh5555#v#v:V l0554ah$$Ifh!vh5555#v#v:V l0554ah$$Ifh!vh5555#v#v:V l0554ah$$Ifh!vh5555#v#v:V l0554ah$$Ifh!vh5555#v#v:V l0554ah$$Ifh!vh5555#v#v:V l0554ah$$Ifh!vh5555#v#v:V l0554ah$$Ifh!vh5555#v#v:V l0554ah$$Ifh!vh5555#v#v:V l0554ah$$Ifh!vh5555#v#v:V l0554ah$$Ifh!vh5555#v#v:V l0554ah$$Ifh!vh5555#v#v:V l0554ah$$Ifh!vh5555#v#v:V l0554ah$$Ifh!vh5555#v#v:V l0554ah$$Ifh!vh5555#v#v:V l0554ah$$Ifh!vh5555#v#v:V l0554ah$$Ifh!vh5555#v#v:V l0554ah$$Ifh!vh5555#v#v:V l0554ah$$If!vh5h555555#vh#v#v:V l05h554$$If!vh5h555555#vh#v#v:V l05h554$$If!vh5h555555#vh#v#v:V l05h554$$If!vh5h555555#vh#v#v:V l05h554$$If!vh5h555555#vh#v#v:V l05h554$$If!v h5x5Y5Y5Y5Z5Y5Y5Y5 Z#vx#vY#vZ#vY#v Z:V l05x5Y5Z5Y5 Z4$$If!v h5x5Y5Y5Y5Z5Y5Y5Y5 Z#vx#vY#vZ#vY#v Z:V l05x5Y5Z5Y5 Z4$$If!v h5x5Y5Y5Y5Z5Y5Y5Y5 Z#vx#vY#vZ#vY#v Z:V l05x5Y5Z5Y5 Z4$$If!v h5x5Y5Y5Y5Z5Y5Y5Y5 Z#vx#vY#vZ#vY#v Z:V l05x5Y5Z5Y5 Z4$$If!v h5x5Y5Y5Y5Z5Y5Y5Y5 Z#vx#vY#vZ#vY#v Z:V l05x5Y5Z5Y5 Z4$$If!v h555555555 5 #v#v#v#v #v :V l d05555 5 4pdkd$$Ifl O >.x  d0((((4 lapd$$If!v h555555555 5 #v#v#v#v #v :V l05555 5 4kd$$Ifl O >.x 0((((4 la$$If!v h555555555 5 #v#v#v#v #v :V l05555 5 4kd$$Ifl O >.x 0((((4 la$$If!v h555555555 5 #v#v#v#v #v :V l05555 5 4kd$$Ifl O >.x 0((((4 la$$If!v h555555555 5 #v#v#v#v #v :V l05555 5 4kd$$Ifl O >.x 0((((4 la$$If!v h555555555 5 #v#v#v#v #v :V l d05555 5 4pdkd$$Ifl O >.x  d0((((4 lapd$$If!v h555555555 5 #v#v#v#v #v :V l05555 5 4kdb$$Ifl O >.x 0((((4 la$$If!v h555555555 5 #v#v#v#v #v :V l05555 5 4kdf$$Ifl O >.x 0((((4 la$$If!v h555555555 5 #v#v#v#v #v :V l05555 5 4kdj$$Ifl O >.x 0((((4 la$$If!v h555555555 5 #v#v#v#v #v :V l05555 5 4kdn$$Ifl O >.x 0((((4 la$$If!v h555555555 5 #v#v#v#v #v :V l d05555 5 4pdkdr$$Ifl O >.x  d0((((4 lapd$$If!v h555555555 5 #v#v#v#v #v :V l05555 5 4kd@$$Ifl O >.x 0((((4 la$$If!v h555555555 5 #v#v#v#v #v :V l05555 5 4kdD$$Ifl O >.x 0((((4 la$$If!v h555555555 5 #v#v#v#v #v :V l05555 5 4kdH$$Ifl O >.x 0((((4 la$$If!v h555555555 5 #v#v#v#v #v :V l05555 5 4kdL$$Ifl O >.x 0((((4 la$$If!vh555#v#v:V l+0554a$$If!vh555#v#v:V l+0554a$$If!vh555#v#v:V l+0554a$$If!vh555#v#v:V l+0554a$$If!vh555#v#v:V l+0554a$$If!vh5"55#v"#v#v:V l+05"554a$$If!vh5"55#v"#v#v:V l+05"554a$$If!vh5"55#v"#v#v:V l+05"554a$$If!vh5"55#v"#v#v:V l+05"554a$$If!vh5"55#v"#v#v:V l+05"554a$$If!vh5"55#v"#v#v:V l+05"554a$$If!vh555#v#v:V l+0554a$$If!vh555#v#v:V l+0554a$$If!vh555#v#v:V l+0554a$$If!vh555#v#v:V l+0554a$$If!vh555#v#v:V l+0554ayDyK Ahttp://standards5.dfesstandardssite.net/keystage3/year2genv2.PPTyK http://standards5.dfesstandardssite.net/keystage3/year2genv2.PPTDyK http://ustimss.msu.edu/yK 0http://ustimss.msu.edu/DdS<  C A? 25a;Ǿ9n`!5a;Ǿ9!}Rh`7 1xZohE?%5D[I \hlmsZTG=&R*PRM6 FE Kk933{{#ɵ7xv{fvv p&O"<"+!ȎT-EReuQ Uo\{Ƶb’\ޖ~wGg- 4 ȮpPrH|G[bZ:YD9׏d:33"A!$V`rM HUS Tpyݸd=n9[iqQ5G)u5͚nXWrvHn<ӫr#V6x}ǭHlVشF6^*,HeqRE\jiDa# Rؔ6k\zaڹ'jH<8> շ/<^evnuƅ(WRc{Po::/NUUyN=k{Fc4\. SRȏ#<ۑZVqk 1*jVjmfqr4괬hV؇{ `1$ƅ453xcȲ8`ɗ1(5K'..BQ햵 ֋7pm-k 7o89H߄&{|v( :f7A| n6zfŨF.WtD_fH[KK3a3%;(nO  8=USS1~q󑭩EYEǜH#k#R;πЍ/+,/5_7 X DdD<  C A? 2= lS/6p6n`!= lS/6p6!|Qp:7 0xZ]h\Eݟd76 HhmlOXZM[lZDK]j*R|P XjbI E`I՗BTS\gޙw$.˹sss̹3s@ ?!XR RYN(nTTd]} oO?[x߂oV -wp#5Y yCp+=G!&`)J.qm{}HҀc7Te7(h>ޫ҃)B)K4/ BYlAJZ\}#*QwYaXF97Fk͚C&oRoLrSTzf)]%N7x7xs7x*Fy+Ў]\d0)bO"Hf]7[ݬT9xYř~Z_Fꦿ6 Sn ;%5+]y N=K{fX4r^,. :P (p^mO_y-8?%^Ư0j;iQC%ςBu J;\8=j(jQ؇ 5~tUmDf*FCB\WV;,hԎIXuhcbNTvScfqh '#xU pXPSa7NkQ\"n63ZT3,g%fՌhAu0o zXf{kKl킚!Ug1.=r5*}DUBDWm33E_6mߣ1qгw亶QТcb}m[ B߃Zծ%_O.;+j l'2c 1wY5}Ikp§ }|e۳xugS,hpˆp|ꢍ#jbY#EQT݁Նp5p8js_K՜w-6l^cϻ^}DТ=;/?ŋYyjwm2SԢs=N'Ѝ8\KCR*IIFǝXɮҙ=#`{O@fh}[~8;ݟi ? zDdt}/‚ڜrAosaT;yyubnwj`c%%W1.ᯭUtw)~j[|t[nF7A?F7Aan UŨ.Wt Y/FŎP'M N;iGyXB@KUܑ:8pF*^9RMNNaмEɘYE79F|FrN<ݡ_XY+WY?_Uk:g/l@S͹1TablezSummaryInformation(&>DocumentSummaryInformation8ICompObjYj8@8 Normal_HmH sH tH B@B Heading 1$$@&a$B*CJL@L Heading 2$$ & F(d@&a$CJJ@J Heading 3$ & F@& hCJZ@Z Heading 4)$ & F `@&^``CJD@D Heading 5$$d@&a$CJDA@D Default Paragraph FontVi@V  Table Normal :V 44 la (k@(No List 8B@8 Body Text$a$CJ4 @4 Footer  9r .)@. Page Number0J@"0 SubtitleCJBP@2B Body Text 2$da$CJTC@BT Body Text Indent$hd^ha$CJ0U@Q0 Hyperlink>*B*BQ@bB Body Text 3$da$CJ8A8;A3GHIJ    DE C   . / : ; D E Z [ n o  @ u v 3Lm*Li|%Kk_-=>Wr#AUf~GYlCVn;\@[lm)Nbc}3SxLMABcd=>gh/0hiBC89pq   # $ ^ } (!Q!!!!"8"a""""#.#W#####$G$p$$$$%=%f%%%% &3&\&&&&':'m'''(9(l((()8)k))))***---.m.?/@/3377R<S<B?C?d??@t@@@@4AAAB?BLBMBBBBBIIIJOORRTTYY``{d|ddxeeee$frffff h!h"hSholplqqssvw xexxyyzzzzz:{;{||||݀ހt߅(Lچ8ۇ܇IJ͍ "G^ޑLMϘڞ۞BCJyzGHIRSdڣzդ߫z{|',Ew³ɳ)HvôĴ_yuvQRYZfEFGwwxIJ _`YWc}bN{^/[\Olg h     6 R   .uq[\]yXs^_`Cy\j$P 3 ;    g!!!![$\$]$$])^)_))e*~*****+1+=+k++++v,,,,,000033>>AAIIINNSSSSUUHYiYjY!]"]^^.a/a hhkkkkppxxuvwEF IJ[>*]^ϡ89MNԩ#e v 7yz.|}vw[\]kltu6[/Ht|}~NOPjrst23M?    T  Gw+S5pqr}~Io(3xym h  L   ,!q!!!!!''''))))*@*l**2+L+T++++n,,--[-\-g-u-----------// 2!2::<<J===}>`@@|AgBhBnDoDpDDGGLLBRCRUVVVZZ\\\]``bbbbcceddbe0ffffffjhkhwh k!k4kmmm o ooppisjsvv@zAzBzNz~=>ΆφІňɋ[\7K67ؐ'mnoĔȔ̔ДԔؔܔ   "&*./159=AEIMQUV[_cgkosw{ŕɕ͕Εϕٕ!zϖ̛@r !&+056AEIMNY:;Ο-Ti+,9BOZ[`ejop{5ڥ"^§ͧΧӧاݧABK #()48<@ALMopqtx|}Ư˯Яկ֯ !%)-.:;Vߵ)2?JKPUZ_`koswx   %*/45IMQUYZglqv{|·ԷطܷnG.X @3}G !%)-:;AFKPUVbfjmqr},-567;?LMRW\abmquyzHI VBOzP,|jklptx| "#().38=BGLQVW\]hlptx|Hk  !&'37;?CDOPRwxKLMQUbchmrwx34DEFJN[\afkpq|ijhijnr|}H9:0rPQRVZ^bfklrw|st>i(h567;?CGKOSXY_dinsx}FGIRUX[^adgjmn{ +/37;?CGKOPY\_behknqtu  !26:>BFJNRVW`cfilorux{| "'(9=@DHLPTX\]gh0h /{     S   - .    1 g   1h&}]FGHf9G)mb4a5""")"""""6#7#%&n&&&'P'''\((((!+S++++++,,,, ,,,,,,,,#,',+,/,3,7,;,?,C,G,H,N,R,V,Z,^,b,f,j,n,r,s,t,x,|,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,-- - ------- -$-(-,-0-4-5-x-z---4..../2223 4 4_4444444444444455 55555 6!66666 75767C7L7Y7d7e7j7o7t7y7z7777777799 :^:::4;=<><K<T<a<l<m<r<w<|<<<<<<<<<<>>q??@`@a@n@w@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@DD`EEE$F`FaFnFwFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFjIxIJJEKyKKKTLLLL MN NGNNNHOPPPQ?QQQSRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRSSS SSSSSUUlVVVVVVVWWWWW W%W&W1W5W9W=W>WIWXXXYLYYYZCZ|ZZ [8[l[[\Y\\\:]]]]]]]]]]]]]^^ ^ ^^^^^$^)^.^3^8^=^B^C^N^R^V^Z^^^b^f^j^n^r^v^w^x^|^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^____jbbccceeHfrffggg g$g1g5g6grIrMrQrUrVrarbr%s&sss$t%t)t-t:t;t@tEtJtOtPt[t_tctgthtstOvPvvwawbwdwewiwmwzw{wwwwwwwwwwwwwzzxzz{G{{%|&|(|)|-|1|5|9|=|B|C|I|N|S|X|]|b|g|h|t|x|||||||||~~b~~~:k  %*/49>CHMNZ^bfjnrvz{fgh~}~ņʆφԆنކ߆ #(-27<AFKPQbfjnrvz~Çȇׇ͇҇܇ */49>CHMRWXimquy}ňʈψԈوވ   %)*5:?DINSX]bctx|AuĊlmR+s,|ɑʑ788f*v+,e)n(mԞƟsS  +IƦ;LũAZETU $458=AFJKNSW\`adimrvwzŰʰΰϰҰװ۰ $()-26;?@DIMRVW[`dimnrw{űɱʱԱձdefL:NOPtg  `ʿ/0!"DEY=>?M  !159=AEIMQUV`ejoty~ $)*:>BFJNRVZ^_insx} $).389IMPTX\`dhlmw|FTJabcz#$au  !$()49>CHIUY]aefqrE  aO ?,q b !",048<@DHLPTU_dinsx}  %&048<@DHLPQUV`ejoty~7a&*+6;@EJKW[_cghsx}u9:>BOPZ_dijvz~^_`dhuv $(56@EJOP[_cfgqv{-z %*/45AEIMNYZ45EFGKO\]hmrwx !Y789=AEIMRS^chmrw|}[\& Q    P Q R V Z ^ b f j n s t                                  ! % ) - 1 5 6 A [ \ ^ ~  &'IJ ',16;@EJOTUfjnrw{  */49>CHMRWXimquy}  !",16;@EJOTYZkosw|""#k###$S$$$%_%%%&r&B*C***+b+++----.i/O0d123?4555566777N77%:;<%??\@AUBB=D///////00'111113333748444"5#5555566777788=9>9991:2:::1;2;;;<<Q<R<<<<<K=L=====> >\>]>>>>>+?,???+@,@|@}@@@AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA000H0000000000000000 0 00000 0 0000 0 000000 8 0 0/ 8 0 0; 0; 0; 0; (0 (0 0o 08 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000008000x0x0x0x0x00x00x0x0x0x0x00x0x00x00x0x0x00x0x00x0x00x0x8080x800x8 0x08 0x0x8 00x8 0x08 00B8 0x0d80x0x800x0x0x0x0x00x0x00x0x00x0x00x0x000x0x0x0x0x0x0x0x0x08 0808 0098 00q80x080x80 0 00 x0 x0 x0 x0 x0 x0 x0 x0 x0 x0 x0 x0 0 x0 x0 x0 x0 x0 0 x0 x0 x0 x0 x0 0 x0 x0 x0 x0 x0 0 x0 x0 x0 x0 x0 0 x0 x0 x0 x0 x0 0 x0 x0 0 0 x0 0 x0 (0 x0 x0 x0 x0 x0 0 0 x0 x0 x0 x 0 x 0 x 0 x 0 x0 0 0 x0 x0 x0 x0 x0 00 x0 x0 x 0 8 0 x 0 x 0 x 0 x 0 x 0 0 0 x 0  x0 0 x0 x0 0 x0 x0 x0 x0 x0 x0 x0 x 0 x0 x0 x0 x0                           ! " # $ % & ' ( ) * + , - . / 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ; < = > ? @ A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z [ \ ] ^ _ ` a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x y z { | } ~  H0 x0 x0 x0 x0 x0 x0 x0 x0 x0 x 0 x 0 ` 0 x 0 x 0 x 0 x 0 x0 0 0 x0 x0 x0 0 x0 x0 x0 x0 x0 x0 x0 x 0 x 0 x 0 0 x0 x0 x0 x0 x0 x0 x0 x0 x0 x0 x 0 0 x0 x0 x 0 x 0 x 0 x0 x0 0 x0 x 0 x 0  0 x 0 x 0 x0 x0 x0 0 0 x0 x0 x 0 x 0 x 0 x 0 x0 0 0 x0 x0 0 x0 x0 0 x0 x0 x0 x0 x0 0 x0 x0 x0 8 0 8 0 < 0 8 0 8 0 < 0 8 0 8 0 < 0 8 0 8 0 < 0 8 0 8 0 < 0 0 x0 x0 x0  0 x 0 x 0 x0 0 x0 x0 x0 x0 x 0 x 0 x 0 x 0 x0 x0 x0 0  0 x 0 x 0 x0 x0 x0 x0 x 0 x 0 x 0 x 0  0  0 x 0 x0 x 0  0 x 0 x 0 x 0 x 0  0 0 x0 0 4 0 x4 0 x4 0 x0 x0 x0 x0 0 0 x0 x0 x0 x0 x0 x0 0 x0 x0 x0 x 0 x0 0 x 0 x0 x0 x 0 x0 x0 0 0 x0 x0 x 0  0 x 0 x 0 x0 x0 x0 0 0 x0 x0 0 x0 x0 x0 x0 x0 x0 x0 x0 x0 x0 x0 x0 x0 x0 x0 x0 x0 x0 x0 x0 x0 x0 x 0 x 0  0 x 0 x0 0 x0  0 x 0 x 0 x0 x0 x0 0  0 x 0 x 0 x0 0 x0 x0 x 0 x 0 x 0 x 0 x 0 x0 0 0 x! 0 x" 0 x0 x0 x7 0 8 0 8 0 x8 0 x8 0 8 0 x: 0 : 0 x: 0 x: 0 x0 x0 x0 0 0 x0 x0 0 x0 x& 0 x0 x& 0 x0 x& 0 x0 & 0 x0 & 0 x0 x& 0 0 x& 0 x0 x& 0 0 0 x0 x0 x0 x( 0 x0( 0 0 x( 0 0 0x0x0x0x0x0x0x0x, 0x, 0, 0, 0x, 0x, 0x, 0, 0x, 0x0 00x0x0x) 0x0x* 0* 0* 0* 0x* 0x0+ 0x+ 0x+ 0x0x- 0 - 0x0x0x0x0x000x0x0x0x. 0x. 0x. 0. 0. 0x. 0x. 0. 0x. 0x. 0 =+x. 0 =+x0=+0=+0(0v,x0v,x0v,x0v,x0v,x0v,x> 0ı,0ı,0ı,0ı,0ı,0ı,0ı,0ı,0ı,0ı,0ı,0ı,0ı,0ı,0ı,0ı,0ı,0ı,0ı,0ı,0ı,0ı,0ı,0ı,0ı,0ı,0ı,0ı,0ı,0ı,0ı,0ı,0ı,0ı,0ı,0ı,0ı,0ı,0ı,0ı,0ı,0ı,0ı,0ı,0ı,0ı,0ı,0ı,0ı,0ı,< 0v,x< 0v,< 0v,x0v,x0v,x0v,x0v,x0v,0v,0v,x0v,x0v,x0v,x0v,x; 0v,x; 0v,x; 0v,x0v,x0v,0v,x0v,x0v,x0v,x= 0v,x= 0v,x= 0v,0v,x0v,0v,x0v,x0v,x0v,x0v,x0v,x0v,x0v,x0v,x0v,x0v,x? 0v,x? 0v,x0v,0v,0v,x0v,x0v,x0v,x0v,x0v,x0v,0v,x0v,x0v,x@ 0v,x@ 0v,x@ 0v,x0v,x0v,0v,0v,x0v,x0v,x0v,x0v,x0v,0v,x0v,x0v,x0v,x0v,0v,x0v,x0v,x0v,x0x0]x( 0]x0lx0lxI 0lxI 0lxI 0l0lx0lJ 0lxO 0lxO 0lx0lx0lx0x0x0x0x0x0x0x0x0x00x0xB 0xB 0x0x0x0x0x000x00x00x0x0xK 0xK 0xK 0x0Gx0Gx0Gx0GxL 0GxL 0GL 0GxL 0GxL 0Gx0GxS 0GS 0GxS 0GxS 0GxS 0GxS 0Gx0Gx0Gx0Gx0Gx0Gx0Gx0Gx0Gx0G0Gx0Gx0G0G0Gx0Gx0G0Gx0Gx0Gx0Gx0Gx0Gx0G0Gx0Gx0G0Gx0Gx0G0G0G0Gx0Gx0Gx0Gx0Gx0Gx0G0Gx0Gx0G0Gx0Gx0G0Gx0Gx0Gx0Gx0Gx0x0)x) 0)x0* 0)* 0)x* 0)(* 0)x* 0 )x0)x+ 0)x+ 0)x+ 0)0)- 0)x- 0)x0)0)x0)x0)x0)x0)x0)0)x0)x0)0)0)x0)(0)x0)x0)x0)x0)x0)x0)0)x0)x0)xN 0)xN 0)xN 0)xN 0)xN 0)xN 0)N 0)N 0)x0)x0)x0)@0)x0)x0)x0)x0)x0)x0)x0)x0)x0)x0)x0)x0)x0)x0)x0)x0)x0)x0)x0)x0)x0x0bxR 0bxR 0bxR 0bR 0bxR 0bxR 0b`0bx0bx0bx( 0bx0fx0f0f0fx0fx0f0f0fx0fx0fx0fx0fx0fx0fx0fx0fx0fx0fx0fx0fx0fx0fx0fx0fx0fx0fx0fx0fx0fx0x0x0x0x0x0x0x00x0x0x0x0x0x0x0x0x0x0x0x000x00x0x0x0xW 0xW 0x000x0x0x08 08 08 08 08 08 08 08 08 08 0< 08 08 08 08 08 08 08 08 08 08 0< 08 08 08 08 08 08 08 08 08 08 0< 08 08 08 08 08 08 08 08 08 08 0< 08 08 08 08 08 08 08 08 08 08 0< 08 08 08 08 08 08 08 08 08 08 0< 08 08 08 08 08 08 08 08 08 08 0< 08 08 08 08 08 08 08 08 08 08 0< 00x0000x0x00x0x0x0x0x0x0x0x0x08 08 08 08 0< 08 08 08 08 0< 08 08 08 08 0< 00x00x0x00x0x00008 08 08 08 0< 08 08 08 08 0< 08 08 08 08 0< 00x0x0x00x00x0x08 08 08 08 0< 08 08 08 08 0< 08 08 08 08 0< 00x0x0x0x00x0x0x08 08 08 08 0< 08 08 08 08 0< 08 08 08 08 0< 00x0x0x08 08 08 08 0< 08 08 08 08 0< 08 08 08 08 0< 08 08 08 08 0< 08 08 08 08 0< 08 08 08 08 0< 08 08 08 08 0< 0000x0x0x0x0x0x008 08 08 08 0< 08 08 08 08 0< 08 08 08 08 0< 00x0x08 08 08 08 08 0< 08 08 08 08 08 0< 08 08 08 08 08 0< 08 08 08 08 08 0< 08 08 08 08 08 0< 08 08 08 08 08 0< 08 08 08 08 08 0< 000x0x00x0x0x0x0x0x0x0x00x0x0x0x0x000x0x0x0x0x00x000x0x0x08 08 08 08 08 0< 08 08 08 08 08 0< 08 08 08 08 08 0< 0000x0x0x0x08 08 08 08 0< 08 08 08 08 0< 08 08 08 08 0< 000000x0x0x0x0x0x00x0x0x00x0x0x0x000008 08 08 08 08 08 08 08 08 08 08 0< 08 08 08 08 08 08 08 08 08 08 08 0< 08 08 08 08 08 08 08 08 08 08 08 0< 08 08 08 08 08 08 08 08 08 08 08 0< 08 08 08 08 08 08 08 08 08 08 08 0< 08 08 08 08 08 08 08 08 08 08 08 0< 00x00x0x00x00x08 08 08 08 08 0< 08 08 08 08 08 0< 08 08 08 08 08 0< 00x00x0x0x00x08 08 08 08 0< 08 08 08 08 0< 08 08 08 08 0< 00x0x0x00x0x008 08 08 08 0< 08 08 08 08 0< 08 08 08 08 0< 00x00x0x0x0x0x0x008 08 08 08 0< 08 08 08 08 0< 08 08 08 08 0< 00x00x0x0x0x08 08 08 08 0< 08 08 08 08 0< 08 08 08 08 0< 00x00x0008 08 08 08 0< 08 08 08 08 0< 08 08 08 08 0< 0000x0x0x0x0x0x008 08 08 08 08 08 08 0< 08 08 08 08 08 08 08 0< 08 08 08 08 08 08 08 0< 00x000x0x0x0x0x00x0x00x08 08 08 08 08 08 08 08 08 0< 08 08 08 08 08 08 08 08 08 0< 08 08 08 08 08 08 08 08 08 0< 000x00x0x0x0x0x08 08 08 08 08 08 08 08 08 08 0< 08 08 08 08 08 08 08 08 08 08 0< 08 08 08 08 08 08 08 08 08 08 0< 08 08 08 08 08 08 08 08 08 08 0< 08 08 08 08 08 08 08 08 08 08 0< 08 08 08 08 08 08 08 08 08 08 0< 08 08 08 08 08 08 08 08 08 08 0< 08 08 08 08 08 08 08 08 08 08 0< 08 08 08 08 08 08 08 08 08 08 0< 08 08 08 08 08 08 08 08 08 08 0< 08 08 08 08 08 08 08 08 08 08 0< 08 08 08 08 08 08 08 08 08 08 0< 08 08 08 08 08 08 08 08 08 08 0< 08 08 08 08 08 08 08 08 08 08 0< 08 08 08 08 08 08 08 08 08 08 0< 00000x0x0x0x0x0x000x0x0x0x0x0x0x00x0x00x0x0x00x0x0x00000x0x0x0x0xT 0xT 0xT 0T 0xT 000x0xU 0xU 0xU 0xU 0U 0U 0xU 0xU 0U 0xU 0 U 0 xU 0 xU 0 xU 0 x0x00x0x0x0x0x0x0x00x0x0x0x0x 0x0x0x000x0x0 0x0x0x0x0x0x00x0x000x0x0x08 08 08 08 08 08 08 08 08 08 0< 08 08 08 08 08 08 08 08 08 08 0< 08 08 08 08 08 08 08 08 08 08 0< 08 08 08 08 08 08 08 08 08 08 0< 08 08 08 08 08 08 08 08 08 08 0< 08 08 08 08 08 08 08 08 08 08 0< 08 08 08 08 08 08 08 08 08 08 0< 08 08 08 08 08 08 08 08 08 08 0< 000x00x0x0(0x0x0x0x0x000x0x00x0008 08 08 08 0< 08 08 08 08 0< 08 08 08 08 0< 00x0x00x0x000x0x008 08 08 08 0< 08 08 08 08 0< 08 08 08 08 0< 00x0x000x0x0x0x0x0x008 08 08 08 0< 08 08 08 08 0< 08 08 08 08 0< 00x0x0x0x0x0x0x0x08 08 08 08 0< 08 08 08 08 0< 08 08 08 08 0< 000x0x0x0x0x0x0x08 08 08 08 0< 08 08 08 08 0< 08 08 08 08 0< 00x0x0x0H0x0x0x0x0x0x00x0x000x0x00x0x0H0x0xY 0x0x0x000x0x08 08 08 08 08 0< 08 08 08 08 08 0< 08 08 08 08 08 0< 00x0x0x0x0x0x0x0x08 08 08 08 0< 08 08 08 08 0< 08 08 08 08 0< 000x0x00X0x0x0x0x0x0x00x0x00x0x000x0x0x00x08 08 08 08 08 08 08 08 08 08 08 0< 08 08 08 08 08 08 08 08 08 08 08 0< 08 08 08 08 08 08 08 08 08 08 08 0< 08 08 08 08 08 08 08 08 08 08 08 0< 08 08 08 08 08 08 08 08 08 08 08 0< 08 08 08 08 08 08 08 08 08 08 08 0< 000xX 0xX 0xX 00x0x0`0x0x0x0x0x08 08 08 08 08 0< 08 08 08 08 08 0< 08 08 08 08 08 0< 000x0x0x0x0x0x08 08 08 08 0< 08 08 08 08 0< 08 08 08 08 0< 00x00x00008 08 08 08 0< 08 08 08 08 0< 08 08 08 08 0< 000h0x0x0x08 08 08 08 0< 08 08 08 08 0< 08 08 08 08 0< 00x0x0p0x0x0x08 08 08 08 0< 08 08 08 08 0< 08 08 08 08 0< 00x0x00x00008 08 08 08 0< 08 08 08 08 0< 08 08 08 08 0< 00x0x0x00x0x00x0x0008 08 08 08 08 08 08 0< 08 08 08 08 08 08 08 0< 08 08 08 08 08 08 08 0< 00x0x000x000000x0x08 08 08 08 08 08 08 08 08 0< 08 08 08 08 08 08 08 08 08 0< 08 08 08 08 08 08 08 08 08 0< 00x0x0x00x0x0x0x08 08 08 08 08 08 08 08 08 08 0< 08 08 08 08 08 08 08 08 08 08 0< 08 08 08 08 08 08 08 08 08 08 0< 08 08 08 08 08 08 08 08 08 08 0< 08 08 08 08 08 08 08 08 08 08 0< 08 08 08 08 08 08 08 08 08 08 0< 08 08 08 08 08 08 08 08 08 08 0< 08 08 08 08 08 08 08 08 08 08 0< 08 08 08 08 08 08 08 08 08 08 0< 08 08 08 08 08 08 08 08 08 08 0< 08 08 08 08 08 08 08 08 08 08 0< 08 08 08 08 08 08 08 08 08 08 0< 08 08 08 08 08 08 08 08 08 08 0< 08 08 08 08 08 08 08 08 08 08 0< 08 08 08 08 08 08 08 08 08 08 0< 00x0x0x0x0x0x0x0x0x0x0x0x000x0x0x0x0x00x0x0x0x0x0x0x00x0x000x0x0x0x0x0x00x0x0x0x0x0x00x0x0T 0xT 0xT 0xT 0xT 0 x00U 0xU 0xU 0xU 0xU 0xU 0xU 0xU 0xU 0U 0U 0xU 0xU 0U 0x0x0x0x0Ux0Ux0Ux0Ux0U8 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U< 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U< 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U< 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U< 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U< 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U< 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U< 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U< 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U< 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U< 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U< 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U< 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U< 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U< 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U< 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U< 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U< 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U< 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U< 0U0U0Ux0U0Ux0Ux0Ux0Ux0Ux0Ux0U0Ux0Ux0Ux0Ux0Ux0Ux0Ux0Ux0U0Ux0U0U0Ux0Ux0Ux0Ux0Ux0U0Ux0Ux0Ux0Ux0Ux0Ux0Ux0Ux0U0Ux0Ux0Ux0Ux0Ux0Ux0Ux0U8 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U< 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U< 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U< 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U< 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U< 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U< 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U< 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U< 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U< 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U< 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U< 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U< 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U< 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U< 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U< 0U0U0Ux0Ux0Ux0Ux0Ux0Ux0U0Ux0U0Ux0Ux0Ux0Ux0Ux0Ux0Ux0Ux0Ux0U0Ux0Ux0U8 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U< 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U< 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U< 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U< 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U< 0U0U0Ux0Ux0Ux0Ux0Ux0Ux0U8 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U< 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U< 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U< 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U< 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U< 0U0Ux0Ux0U0U0Ux0U0Ux0Ux0Ux0Ux0Ux0U0Ux0U0Ux0Ux0Ux0Ux0Ux0Ux0U0Ux0U0U0Ux0U8 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U< 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U< 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U< 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U< 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U< 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U< 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U< 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U< 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U< 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U< 0U0U0Ux0Ux0Ux0Ux0Ux0Ux0U8 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U< 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U< 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U< 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U< 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U< 0U0Ux0Ux0Ux0Ux0Ux0Ux0Ux0U8 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U< 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U< 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U< 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U< 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U< 0U0Ux0Ux0Ux0U0U0U0Ux0U8 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U< 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U< 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U< 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U< 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U< 0U0Ux0Ux0U0Ux0Ux0Ux0Ux0U8 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U< 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U< 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U< 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U< 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U< 0U0Ux0Ux0U0U0U0Ux0Ux0U8 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U< 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U< 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U< 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U< 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U< 0U0Ux0U0U0Ux0Ux0Ux0Ux0U8 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U< 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U< 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U< 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U< 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U< 0U0Ux0Ux0U0Ux0U0Ux0Ux0Ux0Ux0Ux0U8 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U< 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U< 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U< 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U< 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U< 0U0Ux0Ux0Ux0Ux0Ux0Ux0U0U0Ux0Ux0Ux0Ux0U8 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U< 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U< 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U< 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U< 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U8 0U< 0U0U0Ux0Ux` 0Ux0Ux0x0 x0 x0 x0 0 0 x0 x0 x0 x0 x0 8 0 8 0 8 0 8 0 8 0 8 0 8 0 8 0 8 0 8 0 < 0 8 0 8 0 8 0 8 0 8 0 8 0 8 0 8 0 8 0 8 0 < 0 8 0 8 0 8 0 8 0 8 0 8 0 8 0 8 0 8 0 8 0 < 0 8 0 8 0 8 0 8 0 8 0 8 0 8 0 8 0 8 0 8 0 < 0 8 0 8 0 8 0 8 0 8 0 8 0 8 0 8 0 8 0 8 0 < 0 8 0 8 0 8 0 8 0 8 0 8 0 8 0 8 0 8 0 8 0 < 0 8 0 8 0 8 0 8 0 8 0 8 0 8 0 8 0 8 0 8 0 < 0 8 0 8 0 8 0 8 0 8 0 8 0 8 0 8 0 8 0 8 0 < 0 8 0 8 0 8 0 8 0 8 0 8 0 8 0 8 0 8 0 8 0 < 0 8 0 8 0 8 0 8 0 8 0 8 0 8 0 8 0 8 0 8 0 < 0 8 0 8 0 8 0 8 0 8 0 8 0 8 0 8 0 8 0 8 0 < 0 8 0 8 0 8 0 8 0 8 0 8 0 8 0 8 0 8 0 8 0 < 0 8 0 8 0 8 0 8 0 8 0 8 0 8 0 8 0 8 0 8   ( 4@HPXAn Investigation Into How The Introduction Of The Key Stage 3 National Strategy For Mathematics In A Large Secondary Has Affected Year Eight Pupils Attitudes To Mathematics And Their Perceptions Of The Teaching Approaches They Have Experienced Paul WilsonNormal Paul Ernest4Microsoft Word 10.0@캃@mb@ zm@f"x՜.+,D՜.+,  hp|    > An Investigation Into How The Introduction Of The Key Stage 3 National Strategy For Mathematics In A Large Secondary Has Affected Year Eight Pupils Attitudes To Mathematics And Their Perceptions Of The Teaching Approaches They Have Experienced Title 8@ _PID_HLINKSAw< http://ustimss.msu.edu/ Ahttp://standards5.dfesstandardssite.net/keystage3/year2genv2.PPTw<http://ustimss.msu.edu/  FMicrosoft Word Document MSWordDocWord.Document.89q 0 < 0 8 0 8 0 8 0 8 0 8 0 8 0 8 0 8 0 8 0 8 0 < 0 8 0 8 0 8 0 8 0 8 0 8 0 8 0 8 0 8 0 8 0 < 0 0 x0 x0 x0 x0 x0 x0 x0 0 x0 0 0 0 x0 x0 x0 x0  0 x0 x0 x0 x0 x0 x0 0 x0 x0 0 x0 x0 x0 xT 0  xT 0  xT 0  xT 0  xT 0 T 0 xT 0 x0 x0 x0 x] 0 x^ 0 ^ 0 ^ 0 x^ 0 x0 ] 0 x] 0 x] 0 x] 0 x] 0 x] 0 x] 0 8] 0 x] 0  x] 0  x] 0  x] 0  x] 0  x0 @0 x0x0.Hx0.Hx0.Hx0.Hxa 0.Hxa 0.Hxa 0.Hxa 0.Hxa 0.Ha 0.H0.H0.H0.Hx0.Hx0.H0.Hx0.Hx0.Hx0.Hx0.Hx0.Hx0.Hx0.Hx0.Hx0.Hx0.Hx0.Hx0.Hx0.Hx0.Hx0.Hx0.Hx0.Hx0.Hx0.Hx0.Hx0.Hx0.Hx0.H0.Hx0.Hx0.Hx0.Hx0.Hx0.Hx0.Hx0.Hx0.Hx0.H0.H( 0.Hx0xb 0xb 0xb 0xb 0x00c 0c 0xc 0xc 0xc 0xc 0xc 0xc 0000x0xd 0d 0xd 0xd 0x0x0x0x0x0x0x0x0xf 0xf 0e 0x0x0x0x0x0x0x0x0x0x0x0x0x0x0x0x0̽x0̽x0̽x0̽x0̽x0̽xg 0̽g 0̽g 0̽g 0̽g 0̽0̽x0̽0̽x0̽x0̽x0̽x0̽x0̽x0̽x0̽0̽0̽x0̽x0̽x0̽0̽x0̽x0̽x0̽x0̽x0̽x0̽xj 0̽x0̽j 0̽0̽j 0̽x0̽xj 0̽x0̽xj 0̽x0̽xj 0̽x0̽x0̽0̽x0̽x0̽xh 0̽xh 0̽x0̽x0̽0̽x0̽x0̽x0̽8 0̽8 0̽8 0̽< 0̽8 0̽8 0̽8 0̽< 0̽8 0̽8 0̽8 0̽< 0̽8 0̽8 0̽8 0̽< 0̽8 0̽8 0̽8 0̽< 0̽0̽x0̽xk 0̽xk 0̽0̽0̽x0̽x0̽x0̽8 0̽80̽8 0̽8 0̽< 0̽8 0̽8 0̽8 0̽< 0̽8 0̽8 0̽8 0̽< 0̽8 0̽8 0̽8 0̽< 0̽8 0̽8 0̽8 0̽< 0̽8 0̽8 0̽8 0̽< 0̽0̽x0̽i 0̽x0̽x0̽8 0̽8 0̽8 0̽< 0̽8 0̽8 0̽8 0̽< 0̽8 0̽8 0̽8 0̽< 0̽8 0̽8 0̽8 0̽< 0̽8 0̽8 0̽8 0̽< 0̽0̽x0̽0̽x0̽x0̽x0̽x0̽x0̽x0̽0̽x0̽x0̽x0̽x0̽x0̽x0̽x0̽x0̽x0̽x0̽x0̽x0̽x0̽x0̽x0̽x0̽x0̽x0x0x0x0x0x00x( 00x0x0x0x0x00x00x0x00x0x00x0x00x0x00x0x00x0x000x00(0(0 (0x0x0x0x0x0x00x0x00x0x000x0x(0x(0(0x0x0x0x0x00x0x0x0x0000000 0 0 0(0x0x0x0x0x0x00x0x0x00x0x00x0000000000x00x000000000x0x0x0x0x000x0x00x0x00x0x00x0x000000000x000000080x0x0x0x0x0x000x0x00x0x00x0x0x0x0x0x0x0x0x@00 y@00y@00y@0@0@000y@0 lu@ @0@0@0@0 hY/W+})@|6_%V-II4uD oS!#&)\.m6MJ$n܏ϠyG߳C;(=3Vuvp&15LbmA_ 5Mij^#@|շ-_w4Y{nAm\yBt &CLwDpik|sXY{'\0+44446<<= ?t??BrDD`HHHaNNNySZZ[^ _=_bfwff oPomoLrrsjtttz=zUz%|O|g|dGBSg|MNz{ʎPÏMNL4J`vθ(?Vmɹ (HeaT<*Jgi_Of4MF w    Y Rh|[st 56"##$$%%5?DQ}И2k &?W2Mh< ]&-28@EII      !"#$%&'()*+,-./012356789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstvwxyz{|}~I_   """T000@@@AX::XX !!t35;::?b$7|ɋOPt M:ϥ,)R2$5a;Ǿ9U R2$= lS/6p68 R@>(  J  # A"V  C A ?"V  C A ?"B S  ?HYٕx-AD4X]4X4 _1085057561 _1085057586 _1085057635 _1085057661 _1085057696 _1085057779 _1085057805 _1085057872 _1085413343 _1089889304 _1086458421 _1086458515 _1085416957 _1085416981 _1085417055 _1089894855""AAAAA@@@@@@@@@ @ @ @ @ @@@""AAAAAJN225 5aPfPCtItRZW[59M;T;0>5>AA)S0SSSXXXX\\GjSj~~~~/8ޑaemqX`v}՟ܟ&ns# !"%&)*-ĕŕȕɕ̕t,w,x,{,|,,,,,,,,,,,,------ -#-$-'-(-+-,-/-0-3-NTPVouUZ :@}    ``|̊ЊxCLX\]b>G   ! !!!!+!.!8!;!E!H!!!!!r"u"x""\%c%*'-'''--I.M.O.S.....8/////////0(000111111122282>222222384?44488::2;9;<<                          ! " # $ ==@@AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAk$ Pl  5B #~ 70 d*[ % G PF| sU  W    2  N#&  @0 C ~T$xq.70B& iLg' P{5d }j`aOw 4" Fy"̎," SZ# % on' i'iZ) VHH*P*;Dw* k* HK* ,80- *- C)U. G/ F@/3 )(4 V15  5 26 g'8 d8 &;]2> vA mB 'TC M}F zF r|FV_1G '}HfZvJ R K ]tK \K K sK }M zM GP0B1P JQ  iQ QH T j W  X jY  %Y YX][ D] 4D_ {b uV>d 4f Af ?Rih vh  jvlj #ZkJ:mU? m 0~m°sn `dq⥼ nq r ?0s zgEs >s ~t Vt ?u |u#z c Yz ;/} kF}vx~ R  hh^h`OJQJo(hh^h`.0^`0o(0^`0o(.0^`0o(..0^`0o(... 88^8`o( .... 88^8`o( ..... `^``o( ...... `^``o(....... ^`o(........ hh^h`OJQJo(hh^h`. hh^h`OJQJo(hh^h`.0^`0o(0^`0o(.0^`0o(..0^`0o(... 88^8`o( .... 88^8`o( ..... `^``o( ...... `^``o(....... ^`o(........ hh^h`OJQJo(hh^h`.hh^h`.hh^h`. hh^h`OJQJo( hh^h`OJQJo( hh^h`OJQJo(^`.^`.pLp^p`L.@ @ ^@ `.^`.L^`L.^`.^`.PLP^P`L.hh^h`o(hh^h`o(hh^h`.0^`0>*o(0^`0>*o(.0^`0>*o(..0^`0>*o(... 88^8`>*o( .... 88^8`>*o( ..... `^``>*o( ...... `^``>*o(....... ^`>*o(........ hh^h`OJQJo(0^`0o(0^`0o(.0^`0o(..0^`0o(... 88^8`o( .... 88^8`o( ..... `^``o( ...... `^``o(....... ^`o(........ hh^h`OJQJo(0^`0o(0^`0o(.0^`0o(..0^`0o(... 88^8`o( .... 88^8`o( ..... `^``o( ...... `^``o(....... ^`o(........ hh^h`OJQJo( hh^h`OJQJo(0^`0>*o(0^`0>*o(.0^`0>*o(..0^`0>*o(... 88^8`>*o( .... 88^8`>*o( ..... `^``>*o( ...... `^``>*o(....... ^`>*o(........hh^h`.hh^h`. hh^h`OJQJo( hh^h`OJQJo(hh^h`o(hh^h`.hh^h`.0^`0o(.0^`0o(..0^`0o(... 88^8`o( .... 88^8`o( ..... `^``o( ...... `^``o(....... ^`o(........ hh^h`OJQJo( hh^h`OJQJo( hh^h`OJQJo( hh^h`OJQJo(hh^h`.hh^h`. hh^h`OJQJo( hh^h`OJQJo( hh^h`OJQJo(hh^h`.hh^h`.hh^h`.hh^h`.hh^h`.0^`0>*o(0^`0>*o(.0^`0>*o(..0^`0>*o(... 88^8`>*o( .... 88^8`>*o( ..... `^``>*o( ...... `^``>*o(....... ^`>*o(........ hh^h`OJQJo(hh^h`. hh^h`OJQJo( hh^h`OJQJo(hh^h`.hh^h`. XX^X`B*o(XX^X`B*o(.0^`0B*o(..0^`0B*o(... 88^8`B*o( .... 88^8`B*o( ..... `^``B*o( ...... `^``B*o(....... ^`B*o(........ hh^h`OJQJo(`^``o( hh^h`OJQJo(hh^h`.hh^h`. hh^h`OJQJo( hh^h`OJQJo( hh^h`OJQJo(hh^h`. hh^h`OJQJo( hh^h`o( hh^h`OJQJo(hh^h`.hh^h`.hh^h`.hh^h`.hh^h`.hh^h`.hh^h`.0^`0>*o(0^`0>*o(.0^`0>*o(..0^`0>*o(... 88^8`>*o( .... 88^8`>*o( ..... `^``>*o( ...... `^``>*o(....... ^`>*o(........ hh^h`OJQJo( hh^h`OJQJo(hh^h`.hh^h`o(hh^h`. hh^h`OJQJo(hh^h`.hh^h`. hh^h`OJQJo(hh^h`B*o(0^`0>*o(.0^`0>*o(..0^`0>*o(... 88^8`>*o( .... 88^8`>*o( ..... `^``>*o( ...... `^``>*o(....... ^`>*o(........ hh^h`OJQJo(0^`0o(0^`0o(0^`0o(.0^`0o(..0^`0o(... 88^8`o( .... 88^8`o( ..... `^``o( ...... `^``o(....... ^`o(........hh^h`.hh^h`o(hh^h`.0^`0o(0^`0o(.0^`0o(..0^`0o(... 88^8`o( .... 88^8`o( ..... `^``o( ...... `^``o(....... ^`o(........ hh^h`OJQJo( hh^h`OJQJo( hh^h`OJQJo(hh^h`. hh^h`OJQJo(hh^h`. hh^h`OJQJo(hh^h`. hh^h`OJQJo(hh^h`.hh^h`.hh^h`B*o(0^`0>*o(.0^`0>*o(..0^`0>*o(... 88^8`>*o( .... 88^8`>*o( ..... `^``>*o( ...... `^``>*o(....... ^`>*o(........hh^h`. hh^h`OJQJo(l2 d*[c Yz#Zk{b#Zk!'}HGP*-%4fRFy"N#& @0KVHH* 5\KiC sU mB'TCDw*vA)(4 %YW x~JQ_1G|u#zlj}MR K$?usK0~m>s4"D]G/1Psni'rG `dq}j% jP{5Pl kF},80-k*>dg'8 XYzFSZ#Vt j W nq]tKV15][on'g'zM4D_F@/3d8&?0sx2> iQzgEs?Rih~tAf;/}#~:m m7QH TOw&;vhZ)2670ZvJHK*,"M}Fr|FC)U.jY~kk         {TBw۞BCJyzGHĔȔ̔ДԔؔܔ   "&*./159=AEIMQUV[_cgkosw{ŕɕ͕Ε !&+056AEIMN+,9BOZ[`ejop{^§ͧΧӧاݧ #()48<@Aopqtx|}Ư˯Яկ֯ !%)-.)2?JKPUZ_`koswx   %*/45IMQUYZglqv{|·Էطܷ !%)-:;AFKPUVbfjmqr567;?LMRW\abmquyzjklptx| "#().38=BGLQVW\]hlptx|  !&'37;?CDKLMQUbchmrwxDEFJN[\afkpq|hijnrHPQRVZ^bfklrw|567;?CGKOSXY_dinsx}GIRUX[^adgjmn{ +/37;?CGKOPY\_behknqtu  !26:>BFJNRVW`cfilorux{| "'(9=@DHLPTX\]+,,,, ,,,,,,,,#,',+,/,3,7,;,?,C,G,H,N,R,V,Z,^,b,f,j,n,r,s,t,x,|,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,-- - ------- -$-(-,-0-4-5-44444444444455 5555767C7L7Y7d7e7j7o7t7y7z777777=<><K<T<a<l<m<r<w<|<<<<<<<<`@a@n@w@@@@@@@@@@@@@@`FaFnFwFFFFFFFFFFFFFFRRRRRRRRRRRRRRSSS SSSVVVVWWWWW W%W&W1W5W9W=W>W]]]]]]]]]]^^ ^ ^^^^^$^)^.^3^8^=^B^C^N^R^V^Z^^^b^f^j^n^r^v^w^x^|^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^__ggg g$g1g5g6grIrMrQrUrVrs$t%t)t-t:t;t@tEtJtOtPt[t_tctgthtbwdwewiwmwzw{wwwwwwwwwww&|(|)|-|1|5|9|=|B|C|I|N|S|X|]|b|g|h|t|x||||||||  %*/49>CHMNZ^bfjnrvz{~ņʆφԆنކ߆ #(-27<AFKPQbfjnrvz~Çȇׇ͇҇܇ */49>CHMRWXimquy}ňʈψԈوވ   %)*5:?DINSX]bctx| $458=AFJKNSW\`adimrvwzŰʰΰϰҰװ۰ $()-26;?@DIMRVW[`dimnrw{űɱʱM  !159=AEIMQUV`ejoty~ $)*:>BFJNRVZ^_insx} $).389IMPTX\`dhlmw|u  !$()49>CHIUY]aef  !",048<@DHLPTU_dinsx}  %&048<@DHLPQUV`ejoty~&*+6;@EJKW[_cghsx}9:>BOPZ_dijvz~^_`dhuv $(56@EJOP[_cfgqv{ %*/45AEIMNEFGKO\]hmrwx789=AEIMRS^chmrw|}P Q R V Z ^ b f j n s t                                  ! % ) - 1 5 6 J ',16;@EJOTUfjnrw{  */49>CHMRWXimquy}  !",16;@EJOTYZkosw|  &'39?@LQWX  &235AMNP\hilx AAA@33>3QH(?{TAn Investigation Into How The Introduction Of The Key Stage 3 National Strategy For Mathematics In A Large Secondary Has Affected Year Eight Pupils Attitudes To Mathematics And Their Perceptions Of The Teaching Approaches They Have Experienced Paul Wilson Paul Ernestk                           ! " # $ % & ' ( ) * + , - . / 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 : ; < = > ? @ A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z [ \ ] ^ _ ` a b c d e f g h i j