What does integrative education mean
Youth Ministers' Conference
Decision of 6./7. June 2002, TOP 13
- The Youth Ministers' Conference takes note of the report "Integrative education including outpatient early intervention" by the Working Group of the Supreme State Youth Authorities.
- In a democratic society, the equal coexistence of people with and without disabilities is an important socio-political task. The special opportunity of integrative upbringing in day-care centers lies in the fact that the children approach each other with an open mind. In addition, it enables all families to experience the common interaction of people with and without disabilities as the normality of everyday life. The integrative facilities prevent families with disabled children from perceiving themselves and others as a special group. The Conference of Youth Ministers therefore welcomes the fact that the range of integrative daycare places for children with disabilities in daycare facilities has been sustainably expanded in recent years, and calls on both youth and social welfare agencies to ensure further expansion.
- The Youth Ministers' Conference emphasizes that integrative education must and can correspond to the goals of the upbringing, education and care mandate of day-care centers as well as the integration mandate. This includes adequate therapeutic and curative education, if possible as an integrated component or through offers that are carried out by other services in the facilities. This requires intensive networking between day care facilities and early intervention centers, resident doctors, psychosocial services and advice centers. The Conference of Youth Ministers advocates that services received in integrative day-care centers in accordance with Section 30 (2) as well as public health services in accordance with Section 30 (1) of Book IX of the Social Code are asserted and recognized as medical rehabilitation services, provided that state law allows these services to be provided provides or has structurally secured through the services mentioned.
- The Youth Ministers' Conference underlines that handicapped school children have the same access to day care facilities as all children of this age group; If necessary, special integration assistance measures are to be granted in addition to the support in the morning at school.
- The Youth Ministers' Conference advocates a wide range of offers that meet the needs of every child. Due to the different responsibilities, she considers it essential to inform the parents of children with disabilities in particular about the various services on site in a suitable form (brochures, local contact points, telephone advice centers, etc.) and interfaces between the service providers for the benefit of those seeking help to optimize.
Report "Integrative Education Including Outpatient Early Intervention"
The conference of youth ministers has in its meeting on 18./19. May 2000 in Schwerin decided to take up for the years 2001 and 2002, among other things, the main topic "Integrative education including the problem of outpatient early intervention". With the resolutions of September 23/24, 1999 and September 28/29, 2000, the AGOLJB specified the order in more concrete terms.
1.2 Initial situation
The expansion of integrative care and support for children with and without disabilities in day-care centers was promoted by the resolutions of the youth ministerial conferences in 1985 and 1989. After these resolutions, the subject of integration was discussed in 1990 in connection with the adoption of Book VIII of the Social Code (Child and Youth Welfare Act) and taken up again in the amendment and introduction of Section 35a of Book VIII of the Social Code. In 1994, the prohibition of discrimination because of a disability was included in Article 3 (3) sentence 2 of the Basic Law. Together with the state authorizations in SGB VIII according to Section 10, Paragraph 2, Clause 3 for early intervention and according to Section 26 for day-care centers, a differentiated and detailed "landscape" has developed from these beginnings.
In order to record the main features of the care and support of children with disabilities in the Federal Republic, the following materials were used for illustration in addition to a survey within the day care center commission:
- Fegert, Jörg M./Frühauf, Theo: Integration of children with disabilities, Munich 1999 (material volume for the tenth report on children and adolescents. The report on children and adolescents only deals briefly and very generally with the situation of children with disabilities).
- Federal Working Group of State Youth Welfare Offices (BAGLJÄ / Facharbeitskreis III): Overview of integrative support for disabled and children at risk of disability in day-care centers (integration assistance), adopted: May 2000.
- Gernert, Wolfgang, workshop report. The involvement of daycare centers and youth authorities in early intervention. Münster 1998 (reproduced script).
- Ziller, H./Saurbier, H .: Legal and financial foundations of integration, integration of disabled children in kindergarten. Munich 1992.
- Kron, M./Mc. Govern, among other things, economization and quality development. Challenge for day-care centers for the care and upbringing of children with and without disabilities. Siegen 1999 (series of publications by the University - Comprehensive University - Siegen with the support of the BMBF).
In the following text only children with disabilities are mentioned. At all points in this paper, this term also includes children at risk of disability within the meaning of Section 39 (2) BSHG and Section 35a of Book VIII of the Social Code.
The terms integrative education and early intervention are used differently in the federal states. Gernert (1998) - based on the recommendation of the German Education Council - understands early support to mean both integrative education and other forms of support outside the institution of kindergarten: "We mean both early detection and all available aids from the birth of a child to when he starts school, which is done in a community-based, everyday-oriented, outpatient and mobile manner for diagnosis, counseling and therapy for disabled children or their parents. "
In some cases, the term early support only includes outpatient measures, primarily related to the age group from one to three years, but in some federal states also the care and support of children with disabilities integratively or non-integratively in day care facilities. The only consensus is that early intervention ends with school entry.
2. The space available for children with disabilities
2.1 Statistical Difficulties
A reliable nationwide assessment of the supply situation with places for disabled children of preschool age would have to include both integrative places and places that are exclusively intended for disabled children. Such statistics would also have to differentiate between the cases according to § 39 BSHG and § 35 a SGB VIII. According to the assessment of the commission, such nationwide statistics cannot actually be compiled at the moment for the following reasons:
- In some cases, no statistics are available for the individual case areas,
- the recording at the local or supra-local level is carried out differently,
- In the case of integration places, no distinction is made between BSHG and SGB VIII cases,
- there are different key dates for recording,
- the individual integration is not recorded,
- Book VIII of the Social Code - cases according to § 35 a are added to the educational assistance (the introduction of federal youth welfare statistics for § 35 a cases has been postponed for the time being).
The above-mentioned meritorious data overview of the BAGLJÄ may apply as an example of the difficult statistical recording in this area. It was started in 1997 and adopted in May 2000. The key dates for recording are between December 31, 1996 and December 31, 1999. Not all federal states have provided figures, in some cases individual statements have already been overtaken by recent developments.
Reliable statistics would be desirable as an improved empirical basis for social and youth welfare planning.
In the opinion of the Commission, however, no further statistical overviews are necessary for the further procedure, since fundamental problems and structures can be identified from the existing material. For this reason, it was also decided not to show supply quotas or similar for individual federal states. Overviews and individual representations can be found in the above-mentioned statements by Fegert / Frühauf 1999 and BAGLJÄ 2000.
2.2 Forms of integrative and non-integrative support in day-care centers
There are three types of institutional care and support for children with disabilities:
- Facilities and groups exclusively for children with disabilities (special kindergartens, special groups, special educational groups, etc.).
- Institutions and groups with the joint care and support of children with and without disabilities.
- Individual integrative measures in which individual children with disabilities are supported in a regular kindergarten group, whereby the offer must be designed appropriately (group size, staffing, space).
For these types there are usually administrative regulations that define the standards (group size, staff, rooms). The three types can be found in all mixtures in the day-care centers of all federal states with the exception of Hesse: From special kindergartens with exclusively curative educational small groups to integrative kindergartens with curative educational small groups as well as integration groups and individual integration to kindergartens with a single handicapped child. In Hesse there have been no special kindergartens since 1998 that are only attended by children with disabilities, and by 2002 all special or curative education groups are to be restructured into integrative groups.
2.3 Supply situation
Frühauf (in Fegert / Frühauf 1999) calculates, on the basis of figures from 1995 and 1996, what percentage of disabled children who have received support in a facility is available for an integration place. In a comparison between Germany and Germany, the range extends from 14% to 84%. Of the places available for disabled children, fewer than 33% of the places in five federal states are integrative, in seven states between 34% and 66% and in four states the provision is between 67% and 100%.
Based on these figures, the national average shows that 50.7% of the places available for children with disabilities are integrative places (see also Gernert in the appendix, 1998).
In the BAGLJÄ data overview, quotas were calculated (key dates for the recording between December 31, 1996 and December 31, 1999), in which the integrative places are based on the total number of places in kindergartens (age group 3 to 6) and on the other hand the Number of all places for disabled children (integrative and non-integrative) on the total number of places in kindergartens.
When it comes to the provision of integrative offers based on the total number of places, the range extends from 0.39% to 3.82%. In the total supply of places for disabled children (integrative and non-integrative places) in kindergartens, the supply rates are between 0.44% and 4.37%. The arithmetical mean values for a national average are 1.7% and 2.5%, respectively.
If, however, the care and support of handicapped children is to be assessed as a whole (not only from the point of view of integration in kindergartens), other forms of assistance for the handicapped such as school preparatory facilities (SVE), curative educational teaching aids and curative educational day care centers (see Bavaria) would also have to be included .
The following statements can be made based on both examinations:
- The number of integrative care and support measures in kindergartens has risen continuously in all federal states, but with different increases.
- In a national comparison, there are major differences in the provision of places for disabled children in day-care centers in general and integrative places in particular.
3.1 Financing models
Special kindergartens with non-integrative curative educational groups are semi-stationary facilities within the meaning of Section 100 (1) No. 1 BSHG. The supra-local social welfare agency is responsible for these facilities. By the end of 1998, care rate agreements were concluded with the providers of this type of facility, which were based on the principle of cost recovery.
On 01.01.1999, new legal provisions came into force with §§ 93 Paragraphs 2 and 3, 93 a, 93 b and 93 c BSHG, which significantly changed the previous care policy. The self-cost recovery principle has been replaced by a new performance law. In the course of 1999, the previously agreed care rates in some federal states were divided into basic and measure lump sums as well as the investment amount. For the future, average values for the basic and flat rate measures must be determined based on the type of facility and agreed with the facility providers. The federal states have implemented the changeover to the new prospective performance and remuneration agreements at different speeds.
With the integrative support of children with and without disabilities, the Social Code Book VIII and the BSHG apply two different responsibility and funding structures. Since the day care centers in the federal states are already funded through very different modalities, the financing options are multiplying i. V. m. The BSHG.
Ziller / Saurbier (1992) summarized the various forms of funding in two basic types, which still differ in themselves:
Youth welfare model:
The basic funding of an integrative kindergarten group is secured in accordance with the applicable day care center law or comparable regulations (country-specific mixed funding from grants from the state, the local public youth welfare organization, the municipalities, sponsors and parents in the form of percentage staff or operating cost grants, place or Group flat rate). In some cases, the costs of integration are already covered by youth welfare in the form of an increased funding rate for integrative groups, with which the costs for group reduction and for suitable curative educational staff must then be borne.
The cost shares exceeding the respective basic funding are viewed as the costs of the specific curative educational service of the integration assistance according to § 43 Abs. 2 BSHG. If an integrative group is understood as a comprehensive curative educational overall measure in semi-stationary form, it falls under the responsibility of the supra-local social welfare agency. Financing is currently provided through lump sums or care rates. In some cases, however, these curative educational measures are expressly not defined as day-care and thus fall under the responsibility of the local public youth welfare organizations.
Social assistance model:
With this form of financing, all direct costs (curative educational staff) and all indirect costs of integration (missing parental contributions due to group reduction, performance shares, investment shares) are taken over by the supra-local social welfare agency or, following amendment of § 93 BSHG, through performance and remuneration agreements - such as described above - funded. In the most extensive form of this type of financing, social assistance alone covers the entire costs for around half a group (as opposed to financing the regular area with various parties involved in the financing). In some cases, according to this model, individual integrative measures have also been funded proportionally like an integration group. This form of financing is also based on the interpretation that the integration assistance in an integration group is a comprehensive overall measure and thus corresponds to an integration assistance in a semi-stationary form in accordance with Section 100 (1) No. 1 BSHG.
3.2 Parental contributions
For the care and support of children with disabilities in special kindergartens (or comparable facilities with exclusively disabled children) and special groups, no parental contributions are to be levied according to the BSHG - apart from a small amount in the sense of domestic savings in accordance with Section 43 (2) sentence 1 BSHG.Problems of unequal treatment arise in integrative working facilities if parents do not have to pay a contribution for the participation of their disabled child in an integration group, but the parents of non-disabled children do. The problems of equal treatment become even less comprehensible if children are granted integration assistance according to Section 35a of Book VIII of the Social Code, or according to Sections 39, 40 of the BSHG in individual integration (instead of day-care facilities), for which contributions are required according to Section 90 of Book VIII of the Social Code. So there are three different ways of using the parents of children with disabilities:
- A parental contribution as for the children without disabilities in the normal range,
- a parental contribution in accordance with Section 90 of Book VIII of the Social Code and
- a contribution equal to the amount of home savings.
In most federal states, a contribution is made from the parents of children with disabilities. This practice was declared legally permissible by a judgment of the Federal Administrative Court of April 29, 1999.
In the judgment, which relates to legal proceedings in North Rhine-Westphalia, a conceptual distinction is made between two different measures in an integrative group. First of all, there is general support and social integration of all children (regardless of a possible disability) in accordance with the Child and Youth Welfare Act, for which the youth welfare agency is responsible (e.g. redemption of the legal entitlement to a kindergarten place). In addition, a child with a physical or mental disability is granted special integration assistance, for which the social welfare agency is responsible. No parental contribution could be charged for the latter benefit. On the other hand, there is no entitlement to take over the participation fee for the youth welfare service, since it cannot be added to the costs of the integration assistance. This participation fee does not differ from the fees that the parents of non-disabled children have to pay for attending the day-care center.
If one follows this view of a "splitting" between youth welfare and integration assistance and does not regard the work in integrative groups as a comprehensive overall measure of integration assistance, the amount of time required for day-care remedial educational assistance is reduced - again only in terms of ideas - compared to the amount of time required for integration assistance in a special kindergarten. In pedagogical practice, however, it is not possible to clearly determine the limit where youth welfare ends and where day-care curative educational support begins. It therefore remains to be assessed whether the integration groups (both so-called standard integration groups and groups with individual integration) can continue to be defined as part-time inpatient within the meaning of Section 100 (1) No. 1 BSHG under the above conditions. Some federal states expressly exclude this.
On the basis of the Federal Administrative Court ruling mentioned above, however, it is permissible under the Federal Social Welfare Act as well as under the respective state law or required under the financing aspect to limit the social welfare benefits to the disability-related supplementary assistance or the corresponding cost shares for integrative support measures in day-care centers and at the same time to finance part of the costs attributable to regular kindergarten care on the basis of the respective day care center laws.
4. Legal confusion
4.1 Fragmentation of the law
At the latest with the introduction of the legal right to a place in kindergarten from the age of three, the already existing fragmentation of the right became clear: children with physical or mental disabilities have both a legal right to a place in kindergarten as well as a legal right according to SGB VIII integration assistance according to the BSHG; this statement also applies accordingly to children with mental disabilities.
The development of integrative offers in day-care centers from individual cases to nationwide standard offers could, for example, suggest that these measures should no longer be the responsibility of the supra-local social welfare agency, but rather as a combined offer of the local social welfare agency and the public youth welfare agency interpret. The differently regulated responsibility and cost bearing for outpatient and (partially) inpatient help and the above-mentioned different parental involvement according to the BSHG represent a structural problem, even if a number of countries have developed solution strategies.
The development of integrative care and support for children with disabilities is often limited by youth welfare to curative educational measures. In doing so, the fact that the so-called disability-related additional effort according to BSHG extends to necessary measures of integration assistance, i.e. also to aids and measures that are required as a prerequisite for attending a day care center for children, is lost in view.
According to the applicable law, integration assistance for children with disabilities is regulated in the BSHG and in SGB VIII. According to § 10 SGB VIII, the following principles apply to the relationship to one another:
- Youth welfare always takes precedence over social welfare,
- Integration assistance according to the BSHG for young people who are physically or mentally disabled, on the other hand, has priority over youth assistance,
- in the case of children, i.e. young people up to the age of 14, state law can give priority to other service providers regardless of the type of disability, regardless of the type of disability; these are usually the social assistance providers,
- For children and adolescents with mental disabilities, Section 35a of the Book of the Social Code (SGB VIII) provides for special integration assistance in youth welfare law with a strong reference to the integration law of the BSHG.
When viewed from the outside, the right of integration assistance is perceived as fragmented and difficult to understand against this background, especially since other factual and financial responsibilities can be added (long-term care insurance, health insurance companies). It therefore appears of great importance to bring the developments in the area of integrative care, education and upbringing to a comprehensive legal clarification. The codification in SGB IX could be the starting point for this.
In the overview it looks like this:
|Age||type of disability||Legal basis||Measure carrier|
|< 27||Physically, mentally, emotionally||§ 10 II 2 SGB VIII, §§ 39, 40, 43 BSHG||social care|
|< 18||Mentally||§ 35 a SGB VIII||Youth welfare|
|< 14||Independently||§ 10 II S. 3 SGB VIII||determined by state law, usually for children <6: social assistance|
4.2 Integrative after-school care center
As a result of the legal division, there is a problem for the promotion of school children with disabilities in day care facilities. The supra-local social welfare agency refuses to finance - usually the additional expenses due to the disability - of the day care place in the after-school care center, often pointing out that the day-care care that it is responsible for has already taken place in the school. A legal obligation to finance care in the after-school care center is rejected, even though it is often done in the form of voluntary services.
According to §§ 39 Paragraphs 1 and 3, 40 Paragraph 1 No. 8 and 100 Paragraph 1 No. 1 BSHG, persons who are not only temporarily physically, mentally or emotionally disabled are to be granted integration assistance by the supra-local social welfare agency, to enable them to participate in community life. According to Section 39 (4) BSHG, integration assistance is to be granted according to the type and severity of the disability and taking into account the specifics of the individual case, if and for as long as the integration assistance task can be fulfilled.
These principles - of course - also apply when answering the question of whether the supra-local social welfare provider is obliged to finance a childcare place in an integrative after-school care center as part of the integration assistance. The professional activity of both parents as the reason for the placement of the child with disabilities in the integrative after-school care center, which according to § 100 Abs. 1 Nr. 1, 2nd half-sentence BSHG ("this does not apply if the granting of help in the facility is mainly necessary for another reason is ") the factual responsibility of the supra-local carrier could be omitted, was not accepted by the Hessian Administrative Court (1 T 3443/98) as a reason for exclusion. Rather, it referred to the fact that the parents - according to the expert's assessment - did not have the appropriate educational background that would enable the child to be supported in a comparable manner.
In addition, it should be pointed out that assuming that the care is mainly required for other reasons, e.g. because of the occupational activity of the parents of the child with disabilities, the responsibility of the supra-local social welfare agency would no longer apply, but not that of the social welfare agency as such. As long as integration assistance is necessary, the local social welfare agency would be responsible for it.
As a consequence of the Hessian Administrative Court, one can come to the conclusion that under the conditions mentioned there, an integrative after-school care center is not one of the youth welfare support offers according to §§ 2, 22 SGB VIII; at least not the additional work caused by the disability.
In contrast, there is the consequence that arises on the background of the Federal Administrative Court judgment on the parents' contributions cited above. The problem in question here could then possibly be solved in such a way that the youth welfare agency also has to finance the additional expenditure caused by the disability. If the specific curative educational needs of the integration assistance according to BSHG has been granted in the school or a comparable institution, the additional care in the afternoon could be a task of the youth welfare, as it is also for children without disabilities according to § 24 sentences 2 and 3 SGB VIII represents.
A legally secure solution cannot currently be offered. Regardless of this, however, there is a consensus that schoolchildren with disabilities must have the same access to daycare as all other children in this age group.
4.3 Social Code Book Ninth - Rehabilitation and Participation of Disabled People (SGB IX)
The ninth book of the Social Security Code - Rehabilitation and Participation of Disabled People (SGB IX) came into force on July 1st, 2001. With this law, the demand has been implemented to further develop the right to rehabilitate disabled people and to summarize them in SGB IX. The guideline is that:
- Regulations that can be uniform for several social benefit areas can only be made in one place.
- Regulations that must be different are ordered according to the same criteria.
- Terms and delimitation criteria of all relevant regulations are standardized regardless of their location.
The following regulations are particularly important for youth welfare: According to Section 2 of Book IX of the Social Code, people are disabled if there is a high probability that their physical function, mental ability or mental health deviate from the typical state for their age for more than six months and therefore their participation in life is impaired in society. You are at risk of disability if this impairment is to be expected based on professional knowledge.
For child and youth welfare, this basic regulation is to be made more concrete through an amendment to § 35 a SGB Vlll as follows:
"Children and young people are entitled to integration assistance if
- there is a high probability that their mental health has deviated from the typical state of their age for more than six months and
- therefore their participation in life in society is impaired or, according to technical knowledge, such an impairment is to be expected with a high degree of probability. "
According to §§ 5 and 6 SGB IX, the public youth welfare agencies are rehabilitation agencies. Your objective area of responsibility includes services for medical rehabilitation, participation in working life and participation in community life.
According to §§ 22, 23 SGB IX, joint service points for all rehabilitation providers are now to be set up in all districts and urban districts. Joint service points of smaller districts and urban districts are possible if local advice and support for the beneficiaries is guaranteed. The task of these joint local service points is to provide comprehensive advice and support to those entitled to benefits and their supervisors. This particularly relates to
- Performance requirements and benefits.
- Clarification of which rehabilitation provider is responsible (working towards clear and relevant applications).
- to prepare the decision of the responsible rehabilitation agency in cases in which the need for participation benefits is evident so comprehensively that it can make a decision immediately.
- to work towards timely decisions and services among the rehabilitation providers.
- to coordinate and mediate between several rehabilitation providers and those involved, even during the provision of services.
Section 30 of Book IX of the Social Code regulates the benefits for the early detection and early support of disabled children and those at risk of disability. Special educational measures, services for early detection, early support and preparatory measures by the school authorities are to be planned and implemented as a bundle of services.
Sections 55 and 56 of Book IX of the Social Code regulate special educational measures for children who are not yet of school age. There is a legal right to these benefits if the measure avoids an impending disability or slows the progression of a disability or the consequences of a disability can be eliminated or mitigated.
5. Examples of cooperative cooperation in outpatient early intervention measures in the federal states
- In Hesse and North Rhine-Westphalia, "integration conferences", which meet approximately twice a year, discuss the need for and the design of integrative measures at the level of the districts or urban districts. The local public youth welfare agency (specialist advice and youth welfare planning), the local social welfare agency, the health department, the early intervention center, and in some cases delegated specialists from day care centers and delegated parent representatives are involved in the conferences.
- Schleswig-Holstein has an extensive network of outpatient language therapy support. This system is based on speech therapy clinics in the state, which are located at support centers. The most important goal of this network is to prevent language therapy needs in schools through timely measures in kindergarten. The measure includes advanced training courses for educators as well as an exchange and close cooperation with the early intervention centers. (...)
- In Berlin, due to a corresponding regulation of responsibilities in the AGKJHG, the youth welfare office is also responsible for the integration assistance according to the BSHG as well as the early support of disabled children. This should ensure that integration assistance and youth welfare are provided "from a single source". Care for children with disabilities in integrative working groups is the primary form of care. However, there is also the possibility of childcare in special groups, if necessary or if the parents so wish. The child and youth outpatient clinics are an essential instrument of medical-therapeutic care. These are interdisciplinary independent facilities under medical supervision, which provide therapeutic staff and work both on an outpatient and mobile basis in the facilities on site.
- In Rhineland-Palatinate, the practice has proven itself that integrative day-care centers are located in the immediate vicinity of early intervention locations. In addition, early intervention centers run branch offices in integrative facilities at individual locations.
6. How to proceed
The previous illustration shows how the forms of help for children with disabilities have differentiated. In principle, there is nothing wrong with a plurality and country-specific implementation. However, the critics of this development formulate the following questions:
- Are the forms of early detection and support for children with disabilities tailored to the parents' needs, i.e. are they manageable and achievable? Parents of children with disabilities often fear that integrative institutions will not be able to provide the special support that their disabled child needs.
- Do the various forms of funding correspond to contemporary standards for coordinated assistance and professional quality?
- Does restructuring (transfer to the local level, relaxation of standards) lead to financial deterioration for the institutions, leading to a decline in quality?
The demands for improved early detection and promotion of children with disabilities are formulated relatively clearly from a technical point of view (cf.Gernert, Fegert / Frühauf, Children's Commission, most recently: Fegert, statement on the planned SGB IX, in Zentralblatt für Jugendrecht 12/2000, p. 441-446):
- It should be interdisciplinary and cooperative (network of doctors, early intervention centers, youth welfare).
- It should be clearly organized and financially secure.
- It should be based on uniform law and summarize the entire integration assistance from early detection to diagnosis and assistance plans to the individual measures.
These demands point to the so-called "big solution", according to which a uniform right to support children with disabilities should be created within the framework of SGB VIII, which was discussed when the Child and Youth Welfare Act came into being. It could not prevail because parents and associations of the disabled saw the integration assistance established through social welfare as more secure than possible new youth welfare procedures. A restructuring with the aim of uniting all forms of help for disabled children in SGB VIII seems to be particularly risky at the present time. There is a risk that, with such reorganizations, tasks can be shifted and restructured, but the necessary and previously available funds are not given in full.
- Is urinary incontinence serious
- Why am I getting a linker error
- What do you think of your family
- How should I approach my first year
- Will arrogance ever be respected
- What is the best historical fiction
- How do the Poles feel about Germany?
- How do I get bigger lips
- How is airport security
- Is Kakashi stronger than Orochimaru
- Do Bavaria speak standard German in everyday life
- Is religion morally correct
- How was the 1st of December SAT
- Indian women do pegging
- Why do we learn English 2
- What are citizen soldiers
- What do anarchists want
- The world really hates England
- How do I fly marijuana internationally
- What does it mean to wipe your nose
- Who actually controls the Maharashtra government?
- Was Goliath really a giant
- Is IAS the best job
- A great gift you received