 So many of the grants, I think, separate content in pedagogy. So they do summer intensives that are loaded up with wonderful scholars that come in and do wonderful work. But if I'm a classroom teacher, 5th grade, 9th grade, or 11th grade, and I've got 20 minutes to cover this topic, four days it's going to enrich me tremendously. But can I really distill that down to something my students can use? And I would argue most importantly develop a set of skills that are going to be retained as long or we hope even longer than the information that may or may not be relatively fleeting. So what we really try to do consciously, and I think the biggest Kathleen and I sat down after year one and said, okay we really need to retool, is to develop content and pedagogy alongside of each other and to integrate that in everything that you do. So with all your partners, insist that they do that with your scholars, get them to practice exactly this model that we've been trying to do. So that's what I'd say. So one of the things that I think, I have an advantage and a disadvantage. I'm not a historian, I'm not a history teacher, I'm an educator, actually an elementary teacher. Before I went to higher ed. And so I have learned a tremendous amount in terms of what John and the other grant writers have been trying to get teachers to do that's different than just knowing content. And so the whole title, Making the Invisible, Visible. Historians obviously will think in our head, and it isn't a visible thing. And so one of the things we've tried to do in the grant is really focus in on helping teachers and kids literally see the thinking of historians. And so when John says we ask the scholars to do this too, when the scholars come, who are experts in some period of history, we're also asking them to open their thinking to the teacher so they can see when you look at a source. What are the questions in reading in the literacy field that's called the think aloud? So there's three big things that we continue to go talk about, the work of historians and the work of teachers. And we say that historians frame problems and they use evidence to generate accounts. So that's our simplified way. And in each one of those we take and we focus on one of those per year of our talk grant. So framing a problem is critical, knowledge gets created out of questions that arise. So if you don't have a good question or you don't have a good problem, you're not going to be interested in the class that I'm teaching. So it's critical that that problem be framed well and drive the instruction because that evidence can get gathered and accounts can get created. On the teacher side of that, we're trying to say that instruction is critical to this whole process that the way that the teachers generate assignments is formative to that. And then the third component of the rubric is we're trying to say what happens with student work because ultimately it's got to end there. So our rubric tests those three dimensions that parallel for us, framing problems and using evidence, generating accounts. But what we realize is that there's really a dearth of well-generated tools to get at what we thought was really the essential part of it, which is the historical thinking skills.