Lucy Calkins admits she was wrong - stop using this outdated method to teach reading

[Anonymous]

I've been teaching 1st grade for 10 years and LOVE workshop. When I did my student teaching I saw some many kids hate writing because it was so formulaic/basic (i.e. I like the snow because_____, If I were an animal, I would be a __________). The writing curriculum especially makes even the youngest students see themselves as writers/readers and think creatively. I've always done a phonics program too (Words Their Way for small groups, whole class phonics warm-ups, whole class phonics mini lessons) and admit I am leaning much harder into decodable texts this year since nearly all of my students started the year as nonreaders (I do a lot of decodable texts for students reading preA-E). For those hating on Calkins, there is A LOT more to her curriculum than what you think.

I did start the Calkins phonics curriculum this year for the first time and don't love it like I do Reading/Writing. It's very hard, moves very quickly (one day you do all digraphs, the next all blends), and doesn't work with where my students are coming in on so I'm moving back to what I've done in previous years with whole class phonics lessons and small groups.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Districts started to DROP her curriculum. She has never followed the science of reading. Her curriculum also doesn't promote knowledge. It's all about the $$$ for her. So sick of her cult and the teachers who think she is great. They have HARMED a generation or two of students in this country. Disgusting.

Her writing program is equally dangerous. Having kids write flowery sentences before they formulate a structured sentence with a noun and a verb and have one topic to a paragraph and sequential order. If you have enough adjectives your writing is perfect and you are a writer to Lucy’s standards even if none of your writing makes any sense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I just don’t understand how anyone ever thought the LC curriculum made sense. It simply fails to meet a sanity check. That’s why we have supplemented with phonics reading instruction and spelling practice. I think new education trends are adopted by education administration without enough healthy skepticism, of which LC is but one example.

I don’t know either. All I can say is that teachers like things that come across as exciting to kids and they aren’t the beat students themselves. Not sure what goes into teaching certification but it doesn’t appear to be any theory for acquiring knowledge and ability to analyze or produce from that knowledge.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Districts started to DROP her curriculum. She has never followed the science of reading. Her curriculum also doesn't promote knowledge. It's all about the $$$ for her. So sick of her cult and the teachers who think she is great. They have HARMED a generation or two of students in this country. Disgusting.

Her writing program is equally dangerous. Having kids write flowery sentences before they formulate a structured sentence with a noun and a verb and have one topic to a paragraph and sequential order. If you have enough adjectives your writing is perfect and you are a writer to Lucy’s standards even if none of your writing makes any sense.

Yes! MS LA teacher here. LC is all surface and no structure or depth. Also emphasizes self-referential writing rather than academic writing. No sentence mechanics, no internal coherence, no logical flow or analysis. All creativity no academic content. Hate it.

[Anonymous]

My school purchased the Units of Study (Lucy Calkins) virtual resources this year. I just finished her stupid “Up the Ladder” units for reading and writing. Soon we begin the first fiction unit. The company, Heinemman (I think I’m spelling that wrong), has people from Teacher’s College clearly reading a script and smiling an INSANE amount as they read it with poor fluency. In the video for families that introduces the fiction reading unit, Lizzie Van Tassel, our “co-teacher” from Teacher’s College, literally say this:

“because we are doing so much reading online we’ll want to really broaden our definition of text in that it’s absolutely okay if students are reading things that we wouldn’t traditionally call ‘texts’ but are reading things like online graphic novels, or audio books with the read to me function, um you might even see some kids um reading some ‘videos’ and that’s beautiful work that they can still engage in the really challenging, important work of fiction reading, um to interpret their characters and grow ideas about them. Um all of those methods, those formats for books, are a beautiful way to get kids excited about fiction reading. And um don’t feel like kids are doing anything naughty when they really expand their definition of what reading is.”

My school has Epic for books but we also sent books home with kids and they can use the public and school library. They’re also middle and upper-middle class families, so I’m sure they can afford books to read. Why is Teacher’s College telling families that their kids should listen to audio books and “read” videos? I wanted to punch Lizzie in the face. Sorry.

I just can’t stand anything to do with Teacher’s College, Units of Study, or Lucy Calkins. But I have to use this crap. 🤦🏻‍♀️ I teach fourth grade so I think they should be trying to read chapter books even if some read at a first grade level (thanks Lucy, you betch). There are simple chapter books like Magic Treehouse. Just letting kids read whatever the hell they want during Reading is crazy to me. They should have time to “drop everything and read” whatever they want for 20 minutes a day during the school day. But they also need to be challenged a bit. Of course the first lesson in the next unit was ALL about finding books that aren’t too hard or too easy. Like do we need to review what “just right books” men’s every year Lucy? You’d think kids would be able to tell if a book is too easy or too hard. And it’s okay to sometimes read books that aren’t “just right.” The whole curriculum seems like it was literally made by a lunatic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Yes, they teach the old school way - memorization, using a dictionary, etc.

It "worked" for generations and generations (including us DCUMers), BUT the difference it now public schools mainstream SN kids. These kids don't have the mental bandwidth, executive function, the attention span, or whatever other hinderance to do things like memorize, study for a test, sit still long enough to learn the mechanics of grammar (identify a predicate nominative), or master long division. So public school moved the goal posts and leveled the playing field and started using cherry-picked curricula so that learning was "easier". That is why public school (FCPS comes to mind) doesn't use textbooks. There is no textbook that covers their wonky, all over the place, and hard to follow curriculum.

You know that special ed kids aren’t all mentally retarded, right? Don’t blame special ed children for the poor curriculum choice.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Districts started to DROP her curriculum. She has never followed the science of reading. Her curriculum also doesn't promote knowledge. It's all about the $$$ for her. So sick of her cult and the teachers who think she is great. They have HARMED a generation or two of students in this country. Disgusting.

Her writing program is equally dangerous. Having kids write flowery sentences before they formulate a structured sentence with a noun and a verb and have one topic to a paragraph and sequential order. If you have enough adjectives your writing is perfect and you are a writer to Lucy’s standards even if none of your writing makes any sense.

As a parent supporting distance learning at home, I find the daily lessons incredibly confusing and vague. They never make it clear what parts are actually supposed to be in the work and how they should be organized. They might have nothing to do with which part of the story the kid is working on that day. For the new unit, I’m going to resort to giving my son a short organized checklist from the beginning. I also have to supplement mechanic and spelling a lot.

I do like that they have to write a lot every day, but it’s implemented in such a confusing way!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My school purchased the Units of Study (Lucy Calkins) virtual resources this year. I just finished her stupid “Up the Ladder” units for reading and writing. Soon we begin the first fiction unit. The company, Heinemman (I think I’m spelling that wrong), has people from Teacher’s College clearly reading a script and smiling an INSANE amount as they read it with poor fluency. In the video for families that introduces the fiction reading unit, Lizzie Van Tassel, our “co-teacher” from Teacher’s College, literally say this:

“because we are doing so much reading online we’ll want to really broaden our definition of text in that it’s absolutely okay if students are reading things that we wouldn’t traditionally call ‘texts’ but are reading things like online graphic novels, or audio books with the read to me function, um you might even see some kids um reading some ‘videos’ and that’s beautiful work that they can still engage in the really challenging, important work of fiction reading, um to interpret their characters and grow ideas about them. Um all of those methods, those formats for books, are a beautiful way to get kids excited about fiction reading. And um don’t feel like kids are doing anything naughty when they really expand their definition of what reading is.”

My school has Epic for books but we also sent books home with kids and they can use the public and school library. They’re also middle and upper-middle class families, so I’m sure they can afford books to read. Why is Teacher’s College telling families that their kids should listen to audio books and “read” videos? I wanted to punch Lizzie in the face. Sorry.

I just can’t stand anything to do with Teacher’s College, Units of Study, or Lucy Calkins. But I have to use this crap. 🤦🏻‍♀️ I teach fourth grade so I think they should be trying to read chapter books even if some read at a first grade level (thanks Lucy, you betch). There are simple chapter books like Magic Treehouse. Just letting kids read whatever the hell they want during Reading is crazy to me. They should have time to “drop everything and read” whatever they want for 20 minutes a day during the school day. But they also need to be challenged a bit. Of course the first lesson in the next unit was ALL about finding books that aren’t too hard or too easy. Like do we need to review what “just right books” men’s every year Lucy? You’d think kids would be able to tell if a book is too easy or too hard. And it’s okay to sometimes read books that aren’t “just right.” The whole curriculum seems like it was literally made by a lunatic.

My 5th grader is a students at a school that does Units of Study and her experience is exactly what you describe. To the T!

It’s awful. She learned NOTHING in 4th grade. She’s learning nothing in 5th grade. No content. It’s shocking & sad 😞

[Anonymous]

Which systems use/used this?

[Anonymous]

It's really interesting how behind the USA is compared to other countries.

We've known for DECADES that phonics is the way to teach most kids how to read, because the ones that don't need phonics will just skip ahead, and the ones that do will greatly benefit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Which systems use/used this?

Like 1/3 of the country. They used it when I was in FCPS last year. Now I’m teaching at a school in Massachusetts and they use it. I subbed and student taught in MA and where I worked those roles they did not use it and the kids could actually write very well. I’m done with teaching because I just can’t stand having to use this crap that’s clearly ineffective. But about 1/3 of U.S. schools use it. I’m sure it’s a fad that will eventually change though... we can only hope.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Which systems use/used this?

Like 1/3 of the country. They used it when I was in FCPS last year. Now I’m teaching at a school in Massachusetts and they use it. I subbed and student taught in MA and where I worked those roles they did not use it and the kids could actually write very well. I’m done with teaching because I just can’t stand having to use this crap that’s clearly ineffective. But about 1/3 of U.S. schools use it. I’m sure it’s a fad that will eventually change though... we can only hope.

NP. I’ve read it’s the third most popular reading curriculum in schools. The problem is that’s it’s so insidious. It changes not just reading curriculums but entire elementary curriculums. It encourages principals to adopt a “interdisciplinary” approach. Instead of distinct subjects, you fold science, social studies, grammar, spelling classes you fold those standards into the reading-writing workshop.

Also it’s incredibly boring for students! Every day is the same (according to my kid). In the old days, you’d have a daily social studies class and you’d get to do some really interesting projects, now social studies is just once or twice a week, or folded into the workshop.

Chromebooks/technology + Lucy Calkins have really killed education as we knew it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Which systems use/used this?

Like 1/3 of the country. They used it when I was in FCPS last year. Now I’m teaching at a school in Massachusetts and they use it. I subbed and student taught in MA and where I worked those roles they did not use it and the kids could actually write very well. I’m done with teaching because I just can’t stand having to use this crap that’s clearly ineffective. But about 1/3 of U.S. schools use it. I’m sure it’s a fad that will eventually change though... we can only hope.

NP. I’ve read it’s the third most popular reading curriculum in schools. The problem is that’s it’s so insidious. It changes not just reading curriculums but entire elementary curriculums. It encourages principals to adopt a “interdisciplinary” approach. Instead of distinct subjects, you fold science, social studies, grammar, spelling classes you fold those standards into the reading-writing workshop.

Also it’s incredibly boring for students! Every day is the same (according to my kid). In the old days, you’d have a daily social studies class and you’d get to do some really interesting projects, now social studies is just once or twice a week, or folded into the workshop.

Chromebooks/technology + Lucy Calkins have really killed education as we knew it.

+1

It sounds like a good idea on paper - have students write essays on the subjects that they're learning about. Write a paragraph about history, or science. Sounds good. But then that means that the whole day is a loooong LA lesson instead of discrete subjects (having either science or social studies but not both daily is another part of this problem).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Which systems use/used this?

Like 1/3 of the country. They used it when I was in FCPS last year. Now I’m teaching at a school in Massachusetts and they use it. I subbed and student taught in MA and where I worked those roles they did not use it and the kids could actually write very well. I’m done with teaching because I just can’t stand having to use this crap that’s clearly ineffective. But about 1/3 of U.S. schools use it. I’m sure it’s a fad that will eventually change though... we can only hope.

We recently moved to Massachusetts, and I was SHOCKED to learned that Brookline elementary schools very recently bought into Lucy Calkins with much fanfare. That fact alone gave me pause, and we ended up somewhere else with much stronger writing instruction.