Lucy Calkins alarmists

[Anonymous]

I see people bashing this curriculum a lot here. Are there any positives to this approach? Or does it only work with a certain population? Our elementary school uses a curriculum derived from Calkins called Workshop. It’s not directly from Calkins but maybe a follower. Are the Calkins alarm bells overblown, or should I really look into moving my kid out of public school now? I don’t hear anyone in real life complaining about the school or curriculum at all, and people always say they moved here “for the schools.”

[Anonymous]

Most people are clueless, that’s why you don’t hear anyone complaining. There is nothing good to say about Lucy Calkins.

[Anonymous]

If you're referring to the Writing Workshop, that is generally considered good. Of course we all now know her reading curriculum was garbage and did considerable harm.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If you're referring to the Writing Workshop, that is generally considered good. Of course we all now know her reading curriculum was garbage and did considerable harm.

Writer's Workshop is rubbish. Absolutely terrible. It follows the theory that every kid is intrinsically a writer and if you just give them a pencil, paper and time they'll teach themselves to write. There are a few kids who can do this, but most can't and they don't write anything of substance and don't improve. My older daughter was failed by this curriculum. At back to school night this past fall, her middle school teacher even walked through the things she's remediating in middle school this year because of the failures of LC reader's and writer's workshops.

Our schools have now switched to a knowledge-based curriculum (CKLA) and it's so, so much better. It teaches kids how to write by teaching them how to analyze, sort and organize information to make strong paragraphs. It scaffolds writing skills and helps kids come up with strategies to structure their writing so it isn't only stream of consciousness nonsense. This year my 3rd grader has learned to write as well as her middle school sister does--the curriculum is just so much better.

If your school is still using anything by Lucy C, you should know that they aren't following evidence-based recommendations and aren't good educators. Switch schools now.

[Anonymous]

The important piece is that the youngest children (K-2) are also having phonics-based instruction. I heard Lucy Calkins adapted her curriculum to include phonics - is that accurate?

[Anonymous]

Our school has our students write an essay on "something they know." Every year. So every year, my kid pulled out the same old garbage about ponies that they learned in first grade. The handwriting got a bit better, the sentences a bit longer - but the idea that if you let kids just write whatever garbage they settle on is completely absurd. Lucy Calkins believes that if kids are writing about something they know or like, the words will just flow out of them like Shakespeare ...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The important piece is that the youngest children (K-2) are also having phonics-based instruction. I heard Lucy Calkins adapted her curriculum to include phonics - is that accurate?

The issue is that phonics isn't the only thing wrong with the curriculum. It is all based on theory that kids will teach themselves because everyone is intrinsically a reader, which is total nonsense. You can't do a short phonics lesson, hand a kid a book, and expect them to teach themselves to read. It's awful, even with a phonics add on.

[Anonymous]

I see both sides of the argument. I've also met Lucy at a conference in the flesh. Writers workshop works well for students that are already well established readers. The issue is the pipeline of creating readers became very broken when we started expecting first grade in kindergarten and a myriad of other reasons... Of course students that can't read can't do writers workshop. People are blaming one lady instead of seeing the whole forest...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The important piece is that the youngest children (K-2) are also having phonics-based instruction. I heard Lucy Calkins adapted her curriculum to include phonics - is that accurate?

The issue is that phonics isn't the only thing wrong with the curriculum. It is all based on theory that kids will teach themselves because everyone is intrinsically a reader, which is total nonsense. You can't do a short phonics lesson, hand a kid a book, and expect them to teach themselves to read. It's awful, even with a phonics add on.

Different kids need different things. But no one can get anything different so everyone must get the same thing so no one will get what they need.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I see both sides of the argument. I've also met Lucy at a conference in the flesh. Writers workshop works well for students that are already well established readers. The issue is the pipeline of creating readers became very broken when we started expecting first grade in kindergarten and a myriad of other reasons... Of course students that can't read can't do writers workshop. People are blaming one lady instead of seeing the whole forest...

No, it doesn't work well. It's a crap curriculum that doesn't teach kids to write. It assumes they'll figure out how to write all on their own, which very very few kids can do.

I taught my kid phonics at home so she was a strong reader. She is a voracious reader, but she was absolutely failed by LC writing curriculum. It doesn't teach anything. It just expects kids to figure it out themselves.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The important piece is that the youngest children (K-2) are also having phonics-based instruction. I heard Lucy Calkins adapted her curriculum to include phonics - is that accurate?

The issue is that phonics isn't the only thing wrong with the curriculum. It is all based on theory that kids will teach themselves because everyone is intrinsically a reader, which is total nonsense. You can't do a short phonics lesson, hand a kid a book, and expect them to teach themselves to read. It's awful, even with a phonics add on.

Different kids need different things. But no one can get anything different so everyone must get the same thing so no one will get what they need.

They've done studies. Something like 5-10% of kids can learn to read using LC. I'm sure a few more can make progress with some additional phonics. But the curriculum still assumes kids teach themselves, and that is a recipe for failure for most kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Our school has our students write an essay on "something they know." Every year. So every year, my kid pulled out the same old garbage about ponies that they learned in first grade. The handwriting got a bit better, the sentences a bit longer - but the idea that if you let kids just write whatever garbage they settle on is completely absurd. Lucy Calkins believes that if kids are writing about something they know or like, the words will just flow out of them like Shakespeare ...

+1. I totally agree.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The important piece is that the youngest children (K-2) are also having phonics-based instruction. I heard Lucy Calkins adapted her curriculum to include phonics - is that accurate?

The issue is that phonics isn't the only thing wrong with the curriculum. It is all based on theory that kids will teach themselves because everyone is intrinsically a reader, which is total nonsense. You can't do a short phonics lesson, hand a kid a book, and expect them to teach themselves to read. It's awful, even with a phonics add on.

Different kids need different things. But no one can get anything different so everyone must get the same thing so no one will get what they need.

They've done studies. Something like 5-10% of kids can learn to read using LC. I'm sure a few more can make progress with some additional phonics. But the curriculum still assumes kids teach themselves, and that is a recipe for failure for most kids.

More parent used to read to their kids and teach them at home. Expecting school to teach your kid to read is a recipe for failure for most kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The important piece is that the youngest children (K-2) are also having phonics-based instruction. I heard Lucy Calkins adapted her curriculum to include phonics - is that accurate?

The issue is that phonics isn't the only thing wrong with the curriculum. It is all based on theory that kids will teach themselves because everyone is intrinsically a reader, which is total nonsense. You can't do a short phonics lesson, hand a kid a book, and expect them to teach themselves to read. It's awful, even with a phonics add on.

Different kids need different things. But no one can get anything different so everyone must get the same thing so no one will get what they need.

They've done studies. Something like 5-10% of kids can learn to read using LC. I'm sure a few more can make progress with some additional phonics. But the curriculum still assumes kids teach themselves, and that is a recipe for failure for most kids.

More parent used to read to their kids and teach them at home. Expecting school to teach your kid to read is a recipe for failure for most kids.

LC was so so bad. I knew so many parents panicking and hiring tutors when their kids weren't learning ot reading using LC. I have also seen huge improvements in learning when schools after dropped it. The writing coming home now with my 3rd grader is so much stronger than anything my older daughter ever wrote with LC. It's really night and day. Don't make excuses for it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The important piece is that the youngest children (K-2) are also having phonics-based instruction. I heard Lucy Calkins adapted her curriculum to include phonics - is that accurate?

The issue is that phonics isn't the only thing wrong with the curriculum. It is all based on theory that kids will teach themselves because everyone is intrinsically a reader, which is total nonsense. You can't do a short phonics lesson, hand a kid a book, and expect them to teach themselves to read. It's awful, even with a phonics add on.

Different kids need different things. But no one can get anything different so everyone must get the same thing so no one will get what they need.

They've done studies. Something like 5-10% of kids can learn to read using LC. I'm sure a few more can make progress with some additional phonics. But the curriculum still assumes kids teach themselves, and that is a recipe for failure for most kids.

More parent used to read to their kids and teach them at home. Expecting school to teach your kid to read is a recipe for failure for most kids.

LC was so so bad. I knew so many parents panicking and hiring tutors when their kids weren't learning ot reading using LC. I have also seen huge improvements in learning when schools after dropped it. The writing coming home now with my 3rd grader is so much stronger than anything my older daughter ever wrote with LC. It's really night and day. Don't make excuses for it.

Blech, excuse the typos.