APS Lucy Calkins- how does this happen?

[Anonymous]

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]Every year in elementary school in FCPS, my kids are asked to write (or do a powerpoint) about something they know. No research, no guidance - nothing. My daughter wrote about horses every year for 4 years straight. In 6th grade, she basically recycled the same report she did for 5th and 4th. My other daughter is currently in 3rd grade and it will be her 4th year of doing the same. They are given weeks to work on it. It is the craziest, most useless use of time I can imagine. Could they not even be asked to read a nonfiction book and write on that? Pick a sea animal and write about that? This is that Lucy Calkins dumbing down of education. [/quote]


6th grade teacher here. There is a whole research unit. Here are the following units for 6th:

Memoir, Literary NF, Journalism, Poetry, Research, Historical Fiction, Persuasive Essay, Choice Unit.

Your child should have 7-8 published pieces including 1 research project. [/quote]They wrote those 7 pieces every year and are simply re-using their work and topic from the previous year. [/quote]+1 Yes, DC just came home and is writing on the same memoir as last year![/quote]

DP. Not sure why y'all are bragging that your DCs are lazy and kinda cheaters. It didn't even occur to my kids to recycle their old topic let alone their old work. [/quote]

+1

And the PP seems fine with it - doesn’t make her kids change the topics.
[/quote]

I see that but why is the curriculum set up in a way where they can re-use past papers? I get they want to let kids choose and that's good but they could make the kids choose among four memoirs, four topics for research, etc. Why would a child choose to make more work for themselves? [/quote]The parent doesn’t see the child’s writing. It is all kept under wraps at school. Maybe at the end when the piece is published is it ever shared with the parent. This is on the teachers to ensure new topics are chosen, if that’s what they want. The parent is not part of the writing process AT ALL at our elementary school—-quite the opposite. Even their journals are not sent home until the last day of school. Very little communication comes out of the educator. And, it’s clear that they do not want parent help. It’s perceived as interference.

[Anonymous]

DP. I posted up thread about my anecdotal experience. I taught both of my kids to read at 4-4.5 before kindergarten. They both already knew their letters, sounds and names. They both could already rhyme and clap syllables. I bought some highly regarded phonics readers (MCP, excellent books) and my first read through them and then was a fluent reader entering kindergarten. My second couldn't make heads or tales of CVC. Just didn't even know where to start, he didn't get it. So I bought some newer readers that used the "Look at the _____ snake, truck, caterpillar" with pictures and he got the idea. Then we went back to the phonics readers and then he had the idea and read through them and was a fluent reader.

No issues with dyslexia or visual processing or a vocabulary poor environment. Just a different sort of brain than his brother. He needed phonics and something else, too.

Former first grade teacher--back when kids learned to read in first grade:

PP, it also may be that child #2 just wasn't quite mature enough to read earlier. Sometimes, the light just clicks on. I taught a number of kids who could not read at all at the beginning of the school year--but come January, the light clicked on and they ended up at the top of the class. Not every child did this, but some. It happens,

Reading early is not as important as having rich vocabulary and understanding.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

DP. I posted up thread about my anecdotal experience. I taught both of my kids to read at 4-4.5 before kindergarten. They both already knew their letters, sounds and names. They both could already rhyme and clap syllables. I bought some highly regarded phonics readers (MCP, excellent books) and my first read through them and then was a fluent reader entering kindergarten. My second couldn't make heads or tales of CVC. Just didn't even know where to start, he didn't get it. So I bought some newer readers that used the "Look at the _____ snake, truck, caterpillar" with pictures and he got the idea. Then we went back to the phonics readers and then he had the idea and read through them and was a fluent reader.

No issues with dyslexia or visual processing or a vocabulary poor environment. Just a different sort of brain than his brother. He needed phonics and something else, too.

Former first grade teacher--back when kids learned to read in first grade:

PP, it also may be that child #2 just wasn't quite mature enough to read earlier. Sometimes, the light just clicks on. I taught a number of kids who could not read at all at the beginning of the school year--but come January, the light clicked on and they ended up at the top of the class. Not every child did this, but some. It happens,

Reading early is not as important as having rich vocabulary and understanding.

But she didn't say that they didn't learn to read at the same time, just that one learned to read in a slightly different way.

On what basis can you say that reading early isn't as important as having a rich vocab? Reading opens a whole new world, and fosters vocab development, as well as knowledge acquisition that then enhances reading skills. I wish more children were afforded the opportunity to learn to read early rather than being denied it based on ideas about them not being mature enough, etc. The brain is ready for reading early on.

I know there's a contingent who thinks kids should play and learn later, and the focus on academics in FCPS is too much. I get it, but people need to realize that many kids aren't privileged to have parents at home to support them when they finally do get around to learning. Schools should be much more focused on teaching core academic skills than they are, imho.

[Anonymous]

But she didn't say that they didn't learn to read at the same time, just that one learned to read in a slightly different way.

On what basis can you say that reading early isn't as important as having a rich vocab? Reading opens a whole new world, and fosters vocab development, as well as knowledge acquisition that then enhances reading skills. I wish more children were afforded the opportunity to learn to read early rather than being denied it based on ideas about them not being mature enough, etc. The brain is ready for reading early on.

I know there's a contingent who thinks kids should play and learn later, and the focus on academics in FCPS is too much. I get it, but people need to realize that many kids aren't privileged to have parents at home to support them when they finally do get around to learning. Schools should be much more focused on teaching core academic skills than they are, imho.

Years of teaching first grade and observing students.

Language comes first. Then, reading. Sure, you develop vocabulary by reading--but spoken language comes first. If children do not know what an elephant is, they are not going to "get" it from reading a book.

I also taught children who had been "trained" to read early who could not answer simple comprehension questions, but coudl "call" words. I'd rather have a student who can think that one who can memorize.

[Anonymous]

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]Every year in elementary school in FCPS, my kids are asked to write (or do a powerpoint) about something they know. No research, no guidance - nothing. My daughter wrote about horses every year for 4 years straight. In 6th grade, she basically recycled the same report she did for 5th and 4th. My other daughter is currently in 3rd grade and it will be her 4th year of doing the same. They are given weeks to work on it. It is the craziest, most useless use of time I can imagine. Could they not even be asked to read a nonfiction book and write on that? Pick a sea animal and write about that? This is that Lucy Calkins dumbing down of education. [/quote]


6th grade teacher here. There is a whole research unit. Here are the following units for 6th:

Memoir, Literary NF, Journalism, Poetry, Research, Historical Fiction, Persuasive Essay, Choice Unit.

Your child should have 7-8 published pieces including 1 research project. [/quote]They wrote those 7 pieces every year and are simply re-using their work and topic from the previous year. [/quote]+1 Yes, DC just came home and is writing on the same memoir as last year![/quote]

DP. Not sure why y'all are bragging that your DCs are lazy and kinda cheaters. It didn't even occur to my kids to recycle their old topic let alone their old work. [/quote]

+1

And the PP seems fine with it - doesn’t make her kids change the topics.
[/quote]

I see that but why is the curriculum set up in a way where they can re-use past papers? I get they want to let kids choose and that's good but they could make the kids choose among four memoirs, four topics for research, etc. Why would a child choose to make more work for themselves? [/quote]The parent doesn’t see the child’s writing. It is all kept under wraps at school. Maybe at the end when the piece is published is it ever shared with the parent. This is on the teachers to ensure new topics are chosen, if that’s what they want. The parent is not part of the writing process AT ALL at our elementary school—-quite the opposite. Even their journals are not sent home until the last day of school. Very little communication comes out of the educator. And, it’s clear that they do not want parent help. It’s perceived as interference. [/quote]

Every piece of writing is on Google Drive if in grades 4-6. Ask your kid. Secondly, there aren’t that many types of writing. There is narrative, expository and persuasive. Kids will be doing a variety of that throughout their schooling. It is the depth and complexity that should be evolving.

So a 3rd grader might write a persuasive essay on why the school should get a new playground while a 5th/6th grader might be focused on a debate-able topic in the news. As the kids get even older they develop stronger ideas and language.

If a kid is reusing ideas and parents are aware, then this is conversation parents should be having with teachers and their kids. I have never had my kid reuse the same topic on a writing assignment. Her teacher emails us weekly (the class) so we know what genre she is writing and we discuss her learning.

[Anonymous]

When I was in fifth grade we were required to do frequent book reports. There was a standard format that we used in the old days--I wish I could remember exactly what it was, but I know it was clear. I think we also had to find a new word we had learned in the book.

I think I remember that we were required to read different kinds of books: historical; biographical; nonfiction, etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

But she didn't say that they didn't learn to read at the same time, just that one learned to read in a slightly different way.

On what basis can you say that reading early isn't as important as having a rich vocab? Reading opens a whole new world, and fosters vocab development, as well as knowledge acquisition that then enhances reading skills. I wish more children were afforded the opportunity to learn to read early rather than being denied it based on ideas about them not being mature enough, etc. The brain is ready for reading early on.

I know there's a contingent who thinks kids should play and learn later, and the focus on academics in FCPS is too much. I get it, but people need to realize that many kids aren't privileged to have parents at home to support them when they finally do get around to learning. Schools should be much more focused on teaching core academic skills than they are, imho.

Years of teaching first grade and observing students.

Language comes first. Then, reading. Sure, you develop vocabulary by reading--but spoken language comes first. If children do not know what an elephant is, they are not going to "get" it from reading a book.

I also taught children who had been "trained" to read early who could not answer simple comprehension questions, but coudl "call" words. I'd rather have a student who can think that one who can memorize.

False dichotomy. They can learn both, together. Learning early gets a bad rap when it shouldn't. Doesn't have to be anything intense about it. It's not about getting ahead but learning a wonderful lifelong skill at a time when learning can be very easy. And definitely not true that learning early means understanding is superficial.

[Anonymous]

It is so typical of the dysfunctional FCPS system to fall for the latest scam / fad in education, which is eventually exposed as harmful to children .

[Anonymous]

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]Every year in elementary school in FCPS, my kids are asked to write (or do a powerpoint) about something they know. No research, no guidance - nothing. My daughter wrote about horses every year for 4 years straight. In 6th grade, she basically recycled the same report she did for 5th and 4th. My other daughter is currently in 3rd grade and it will be her 4th year of doing the same. They are given weeks to work on it. It is the craziest, most useless use of time I can imagine. Could they not even be asked to read a nonfiction book and write on that? Pick a sea animal and write about that? This is that Lucy Calkins dumbing down of education. [/quote]


6th grade teacher here. There is a whole research unit. Here are the following units for 6th:

Memoir, Literary NF, Journalism, Poetry, Research, Historical Fiction, Persuasive Essay, Choice Unit.

Your child should have 7-8 published pieces including 1 research project. [/quote]They wrote those 7 pieces every year and are simply re-using their work and topic from the previous year. [/quote]+1 Yes, DC just came home and is writing on the same memoir as last year![/quote]

DP. Not sure why y'all are bragging that your DCs are lazy and kinda cheaters. It didn't even occur to my kids to recycle their old topic let alone their old work. [/quote]

+1

And the PP seems fine with it - doesn’t make her kids change the topics.
[/quote]

I see that but why is the curriculum set up in a way where they can re-use past papers? I get they want to let kids choose and that's good but they could make the kids choose among four memoirs, four topics for research, etc. Why would a child choose to make more work for themselves? [/quote]The parent doesn’t see the child’s writing. It is all kept under wraps at school. Maybe at the end when the piece is published is it ever shared with the parent. This is on the teachers to ensure new topics are chosen, if that’s what they want. The parent is not part of the writing process AT ALL at our elementary school—-quite the opposite. Even their journals are not sent home until the last day of school. Very little communication comes out of the educator. And, it’s clear that they do not want parent help. It’s perceived as interference. [/quote]

Every piece of writing is on Google Drive if in grades 4-6. Ask your kid. Secondly, there aren’t that many types of writing. There is narrative, expository and persuasive. Kids will be doing a variety of that throughout their schooling. It is the depth and complexity that should be evolving.

So a 3rd grader might write a persuasive essay on why the school should get a new playground while a 5th/6th grader might be focused on a debate-able topic in the news. As the kids get even older they develop stronger ideas and language.
1/3 of the
If a kid is reusing ideas and parents are aware, then this is conversation parents should be having with teachers and their kids. I have never had my kid reuse the same topic on a writing assignment. Her teacher emails us weekly (the class) so we know what genre she is writing and we discuss her learning. [/quote]

That's great that was your experience. Our FCPS elementary teachers would only email when there was a severe problem usually about 2 months before the end of the school year because they refused to have a conference in the beginning because there was no issue. There was no weekly email. Our experience with FCPS and writing in particular was exactly like PP's. Just endless days of kids working on their projects on their own with no guidance or rules to follow lest the project "stifle their creativity". About 1/3 of the class always did great with this setup and the rest of the class failed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It is so typical of the dysfunctional FCPS system to fall for the latest scam / fad in education, which is eventually exposed as harmful to children .

Every single district in our area went gaga for Lucy.

[Anonymous]

I don't know what percentage of teaching colleges/education schools and school districts embraced the Lucy Calkins balanced literacy curriculum, but I believe the curriculum dominated the market and was used in many states and public school districts. It is hard to blame school districts and public officials for initially adopting it. It was well marketed and was a strong fad that really caught on. Some districts were required by state legislatures to use the curriculum.

I do blame researchers, public officials, and school districts for taking decades before they understood the effects of the curriculum and came to the realization that it was not effective whatsoever. I don't blame teachers. They are not scientists and researchers. They did not understand how to teach someone to read. They used the methodology they learned in college and from the professional training they received. If you read the testimony of teachers who taught the curriculum and realized later how terrible it was, they were sick to their stomachs about all the children who suffered and did not learn to read well because of the curriculum.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't know what percentage of teaching colleges/education schools and school districts embraced the Lucy Calkins balanced literacy curriculum, but I believe the curriculum dominated the market and was used in many states and public school districts. It is hard to blame school districts and public officials for initially adopting it. It was well marketed and was a strong fad that really caught on. Some districts were required by state legislatures to use the curriculum.

I do blame researchers, public officials, and school districts for taking decades before they understood the effects of the curriculum and came to the realization that it was not effective whatsoever. I don't blame teachers. They are not scientists and researchers. They did not understand how to teach someone to read. They used the methodology they learned in college and from the professional training they received. If you read the testimony of teachers who taught the curriculum and realized later how terrible it was, they were sick to their stomachs about all the children who suffered and did not learn to read well because of the curriculum.

+1. Pay attention to Equity Grading movement. Lots of consultants with big fees and little research. It's the new fad and the NoVA districts are all over it. Hook line sink for the next scam.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’m not sure if this should be here or general education but how does a large school district adopt a standard of learning that is not evidence based? Now you have years of kids that haven’t really learned to read or spell. I thought teachers had autonomy but it sounds like the method of instruction and curriculum is decided by the administrators/ county.

The majority of the country had adopted it as far as I know. I was completely baffled (coming from overseas) when the teacher first tried to explain the concept to me in elementary here with my oldest.

And of course, it was a disaster. Still spelling incorrectly after all these years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't know what percentage of teaching colleges/education schools and school districts embraced the Lucy Calkins balanced literacy curriculum, but I believe the curriculum dominated the market and was used in many states and public school districts. It is hard to blame school districts and public officials for initially adopting it. It was well marketed and was a strong fad that really caught on. Some districts were required by state legislatures to use the curriculum.

I do blame researchers, public officials, and school districts for taking decades before they understood the effects of the curriculum and came to the realization that it was not effective whatsoever. I don't blame teachers. They are not scientists and researchers. They did not understand how to teach someone to read. They used the methodology they learned in college and from the professional training they received. If you read the testimony of teachers who taught the curriculum and realized later how terrible it was, they were sick to their stomachs about all the children who suffered and did not learn to read well because of the curriculum.

I only blame teachers and schools that are still clinging to it. We all know better. A teacher who is still using LC is negligent and should be fired. (And yes, I've met some, including in APS. Last year at BTS night the APS teachers explained that they were not introducing Core Knowledge LA but had decided to do another year of LC in 1st grade. They later backtracked a bit and said they'd also use 95Phonics with LC, but still weren't going to do Core Knowledge LA.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't know what percentage of teaching colleges/education schools and school districts embraced the Lucy Calkins balanced literacy curriculum, but I believe the curriculum dominated the market and was used in many states and public school districts. It is hard to blame school districts and public officials for initially adopting it. It was well marketed and was a strong fad that really caught on. Some districts were required by state legislatures to use the curriculum.

I do blame researchers, public officials, and school districts for taking decades before they understood the effects of the curriculum and came to the realization that it was not effective whatsoever. I don't blame teachers. They are not scientists and researchers. They did not understand how to teach someone to read. They used the methodology they learned in college and from the professional training they received. If you read the testimony of teachers who taught the curriculum and realized later how terrible it was, they were sick to their stomachs about all the children who suffered and did not learn to read well because of the curriculum.

I only blame teachers and schools that are still clinging to it. We all know better. A teacher who is still using LC is negligent and should be fired. (And yes, I've met some, including in APS. Last year at BTS night the APS teachers explained that they were not introducing Core Knowledge LA but had decided to do another year of LC in 1st grade. They later backtracked a bit and said they'd also use 95Phonics with LC, but still weren't going to do Core Knowledge LA.)

It would be interesting to see how the other trends in education at the time impact one another. For example, I just learned that despite all the evidence to support Science of Reading, organizations that support English Language Learners are not big fans of the shift to Science of Reading. Turns out if you are learning English, then sounding out the words that you may not know the meaning to is not the same. Whereas if you have the picture clues of Lucy Caulkings that might help (though does it really if the kids don't learn how to read well)? Article linked below.

https://www.edweek.org/teaching-learning/science-of-reading-and-english-learner-advocates-reach-common-ground/2023/11