Columbia University’s discredited Calkins reading curriculum still used at Berkeley

[Anonymous]

The problem with Education schools is that faculty cannot get tenure by publishing a paper confirming that Phonics works or that sleeping with the text under student’s pillow does not work.

They only can get tenure by publishing papers saying current methods are bad and proposing some (seemingly new, but really already disproven) alternate approach.

Another issue, one common with social sciences, is that research is almost never duplicated, in part because the original papers do not provide enough detail for another person to duplicate the experiment. This is very very different from Physics or Chemistry where such duplication is common and normal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://edsource.org/2024/berkeley-schools-use-a-discredited-reading-curriculum-why-is-it-still-in-classrooms/704503?amp=1


“And though the lawsuit settled in 2021, the district’s method of teaching reading, a balanced literacy curriculum developed by Columbia University Teachers College professor Lucy Calkins called Units of Study, remains in place.

Rather than teaching students to sound out letters, the curriculum relies on a method called three-cueing — where students use context clues like pictures to figure out words — that has now been discredited and banned in several states. Some Berkeley teachers still use cueing, while others have dropped the discredited practice.”

Why are some still clinging to Calkins, when it’s been discredited and phonics is proven to work?

Because it feels progressive, while phonics feels very old school, conservative, Christian-private-school-y

Ha, true, best comment yet.

Imagine getting a B.A. (or worse, an M.Ed.) and realizing you have nothing more to offer than Mary Ingalls did 150 years ago. And that your education and its associated research is a farce, because we've known how to teaching reading, writing, and mathematics for thousands of years.

.that's not really how it works. Yes....it's good to not be beholden to these s** programs, but no - they're not 100 percent bad, and yes, teachers can find their way though. It's just when admin forces it that it's a problem .

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://edsource.org/2024/berkeley-schools-use-a-discredited-reading-curriculum-why-is-it-still-in-classrooms/704503?amp=1


“And though the lawsuit settled in 2021, the district’s method of teaching reading, a balanced literacy curriculum developed by Columbia University Teachers College professor Lucy Calkins called Units of Study, remains in place.

Rather than teaching students to sound out letters, the curriculum relies on a method called three-cueing — where students use context clues like pictures to figure out words — that has now been discredited and banned in several states. Some Berkeley teachers still use cueing, while others have dropped the discredited practice.”

Why are some still clinging to Calkins, when it’s been discredited and phonics is proven to work?

Because it feels progressive, while phonics feels very old school, conservative, Christian-private-school-y

Ha, true, best comment yet.

Imagine getting a B.A. (or worse, an M.Ed.) and realizing you have nothing more to offer than Mary Ingalls did 150 years ago. And that your education and its associated research is a farce, because we've known how to teaching reading, writing, and mathematics for thousands of years.

Mary Ingalls? I guess that's a TV show reference? Because in real life, she wasn't a teacher. Laura was, briefly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The problem with Education schools is that faculty cannot get tenure by publishing a paper confirming that Phonics works or that sleeping with the text under student’s pillow does not work.

They only can get tenure by publishing papers saying current methods are bad and proposing some (seemingly new, but really already disproven) alternate approach.

Another issue, one common with social sciences, is that research is almost never duplicated, in part because the original papers do not provide enough detail for another person to duplicate the experiment. This is very very different from Physics or Chemistry where such duplication is common and normal.

+1 There is also a lot of money to be made from successfully pushing a new curriculum.