Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

What kind of writing did you see brought home at the beginning of 3rd? Asking because I have one in 2nd right now who has brought home maybe 3 pieces of written work all year. The handwriting, spelling, and writing is just really bad. But maybe my expectations are too high for an 8 year old b

My third grader is writing 1-2 full pages per day at school. This week they're doing a space unit. She wrote a factual essay about Venus, a two-page paper comparing and contrasting the inner and outer planets, a creative piece inventing her own planet using vocabulary she's learned about planets, and a creative writing assignment where NASA calling her and asking her to go into space. She's also working on a persuasive essay to convince other kids to read her favorite book.

What kind of school is this?

Public school. CKLA curriculum.

CKLA is very good - Science of Reading - Phonics front and center. I wish our public schools used CKLA.

I withheld judgment until I saw it in action but we're a few years in and I'm super impressed with the work product my kids are bringing home. Their reading and writing has improved a ton over the LC work product. And they absolutely love the CKLA units. They are so engaged and dig in even more at home. My 8 yo loved her creative writing prompt from this week so much that she spent all day today expanding it to "write a novel." She's written pages and pages. It so fun to see.

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?

Only slightly changed - Phonics in name only. Not actually fixed.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

What kind of writing did you see brought home at the beginning of 3rd? Asking because I have one in 2nd right now who has brought home maybe 3 pieces of written work all year. The handwriting, spelling, and writing is just really bad. But maybe my expectations are too high for an 8 year old b

My third grader is writing 1-2 full pages per day at school. This week they're doing a space unit. She wrote a factual essay about Venus, a two-page paper comparing and contrasting the inner and outer planets, a creative piece inventing her own planet using vocabulary she's learned about planets, and a creative writing assignment where NASA calling her and asking her to go into space. She's also working on a persuasive essay to convince other kids to read her favorite book.

What kind of school is this?

Public school. CKLA curriculum.

CKLA is very good - Science of Reading - Phonics front and center. I wish our public schools used CKLA.

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.

5%???

What about kids who are already readers? Will writing workshop work for strong readers?

There are a few kids who are innate writers, so it's fine for them but those are the kids who could write well using any curriculum. For everyone else, the writer's workshop curriculum doesn't teach how to write, but expects kids to figure out how to write on their own. Very few can do this so kids who use the LC writing curriculum end up terrible writers. Our middle school has even adapted its whole language arts curriculum to remediate for the gaps caused by this curriculum. It's that bad.

This. Been there and our kids suffered severely from WW.

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.

Disagree. Teacher admitted privately that with Writers Workshop she was forbidden to even mark corrections for spelling or grammar on students submissions, unlike the previous curriculum. She said all the teachers had been told it was not allowed because it would prevent their 2nd graders from "thinking big thoughts".

She suggested privately that we help our DC with explicit spelling and grammar instruction at home. At least at that school, grammar and spelling was not corrected until after WW ended at the very end of 3rd grade. We were grateful for the tip, which was provided only after we politely had asked direct questions why DD's work was not being corrected.

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.

5%???

What about kids who are already readers? Will writing workshop work for strong readers?

Yes but anything works for them. They can’t be the target.

NO. I’m a high school English teacher . Calkins is really THAT bad. No phonics instruction. Nothing that teaches them how to read. Workshop is the absolute worst model you could ever use. She did irreparable damage to
a generation of kids who learned with this curriculum.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

What kind of writing did you see brought home at the beginning of 3rd? Asking because I have one in 2nd right now who has brought home maybe 3 pieces of written work all year. The handwriting, spelling, and writing is just really bad. But maybe my expectations are too high for an 8 year old b

My third grader is writing 1-2 full pages per day at school. This week they're doing a space unit. She wrote a factual essay about Venus, a two-page paper comparing and contrasting the inner and outer planets, a creative piece inventing her own planet using vocabulary she's learned about planets, and a creative writing assignment where NASA calling her and asking her to go into space. She's also working on a persuasive essay to convince other kids to read her favorite book.

What kind of school is this?

Public school. CKLA curriculum.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

What kind of writing did you see brought home at the beginning of 3rd? Asking because I have one in 2nd right now who has brought home maybe 3 pieces of written work all year. The handwriting, spelling, and writing is just really bad. But maybe my expectations are too high for an 8 year old b

I'm the Midwest parent PP above. Below are some thoughts and reactions I wanted to share. Apologies for the choppy organization.

Everything I hear from teachers about elementary writing these days has the view that requiring correct spelling early on prevents love of writing and writing productivity. This is a belief. I don't share it but I'm not in charge.

Handwriting is even more de-emphasized than spelling. There is little time for it among competing curriculum demands. And kids who truly have bad handwriting often can't improve it very much even with tons of emphasis in school. The value of neat handwriting is a bit debatable but having fine motor control is certainly useful. I probably should have independently required my kids to go through Handwriting Without Tears before 3rd grade. It felt like there wasn't time in our lives but I wish I had. So maybe work on this over the summers?

Some teachers will honestly admit that they believe computers render grammar and spell-checking obsolete. You can decide for yourself. You will likely notice very few corrections/little red ink on your childrens' English class work going forward. Teachers just don't seem to have the time.

I am remembering now that despite Writer's Workshop, our 1st grade curriculum taught and enforced proper paragraph structure. So I think that was an add-on to Writer's Workshop.

I hear Catholic elementary schools are much more traditional at the present time and do focus on things like handwriting and writing correction. That's not my religious background and I never felt good about what I heard about those schools when I was in middle and high school. So, despite hearing some good things about elementary curriculum in recent times, I never seriously entertained looking into them. You might consider looking into Catholic schools if you want a more traditional educational experience.

In second grade, my older kid was producing long pieces of writing. He had a serialized story that he wrote in his writing notebook. They had regular mandatory unstructured writing time.

Also re: second grade, I remember an infamous battle of wills with my younger son over a piece of fiction writing that was maybe a page and a quarter. So maybe 300 words or so. They had worked on it in class for many days and he had to bring it home because it wasn't completed in class. It took a whole day for him to finish it. I think in the end he was allowed to have it typed up. That was the only long piece that year.

A lot of my kids' writing in early elementary consisted of paragraphs written for various units (science, etc.). They liked opinion writing the best and journaling/writing about themselves the least. The curriculum seemed to have too much journaling and introspection vs. what I experienced as a kid.

I do think strong reading helps to develop writing skills once the time comes to really demonstrate them (middle school and up).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

What kind of writing did you see brought home at the beginning of 3rd? Asking because I have one in 2nd right now who has brought home maybe 3 pieces of written work all year. The handwriting, spelling, and writing is just really bad. But maybe my expectations are too high for an 8 year old b

My third grader is writing 1-2 full pages per day at school. This week they're doing a space unit. She wrote a factual essay about Venus, a two-page paper comparing and contrasting the inner and outer planets, a creative piece inventing her own planet using vocabulary she's learned about planets, and a creative writing assignment where NASA calling her and asking her to go into space. She's also working on a persuasive essay to convince other kids to read her favorite book.

What kind of school is this?

Anonymous wrote:

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.

What kind of writing did you see brought home at the beginning of 3rd? Asking because I have one in 2nd right now who has brought home maybe 3 pieces of written work all year. The handwriting, spelling, and writing is just really bad. But maybe my expectations are too high for an 8 year old b

My third grader is writing 1-2 full pages per day at school. This week they're doing a space unit. She wrote a factual essay about Venus, a two-page paper comparing and contrasting the inner and outer planets, a creative piece inventing her own planet using vocabulary she's learned about planets, and a creative writing assignment where NASA calling her and asking her to go into space. She's also working on a persuasive essay to convince other kids to read her favorite book.

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.

5%???

What about kids who are already readers? Will writing workshop work for strong readers?

There are a few kids who are innate writers, so it's fine for them but those are the kids who could write well using any curriculum. For everyone else, the writer's workshop curriculum doesn't teach how to write, but expects kids to figure out how to write on their own. Very few can do this so kids who use the LC writing curriculum end up terrible writers. Our middle school has even adapted its whole language arts curriculum to remediate for the gaps caused by this curriculum. It's that bad.

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.

What kind of writing did you see brought home at the beginning of 3rd? Asking because I have one in 2nd right now who has brought home maybe 3 pieces of written work all year. The handwriting, spelling, and writing is just really bad. But maybe my expectations are too high for an 8 year old b

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.

5%???

What about kids who are already readers? Will writing workshop work for strong readers?

Anonymous wrote: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.”

I'm a parent of grown kids in a Midwestern state. I wrote up a few thoughts for you based on my experience as a parent and have put a couple links for more technical details.

My kids had the Lucy Calkins/Fountas & Pinnell literacy curriculum. The teachers had been told it was a great curriculum and they were all trying hard to implement it. The classrooms had leveled reading bins and my kids were very aware of their reading levels. They did do Writer's Workshop exercises as well. I helped review existing classroom books and also bought nice used books at booksales and looked up their levels and wrote the levels on the covers so they could be sorted into the proper bins.

1) My first thought is that many (but not all) smart kids who are read to at home or have books in their life are usually going to turn out okay no matter what. The Lucy Calkins method stuff mainly only applies to early reading (late K-2nd grade). There didn't seem to be many books on the non-textbook market that were formally considered eligible for guided reading beyond the levels deemed to be for mid-2nd grade. So schools seem to stop using the Workshop type materials around 2nd grade anyway.

2) The assignment of levels to books turned out to have not have solid research behind it. Some kids don't like being labeled or told what book bins they should pick from. I noticed some problems even while leveling the books. It was odd to me to see what was level F and what was I, K vs. L. Picture books, including classics, didn't fit in the system at all. And the official lowest level books (A-E) were rare and not very interesting. I believe the design of the program was considered worst at this lower end. I felt the whole setup slightly discouraged student interest by keeping them away from "stretch" books and books with beautiful illustrations in favor of dull, corporate early readers.

3) Some kids, even smart ones, really do need extra phonics practice. If you've ever noticed smart people who can't spell as adults...that would give you a sense of the kind of person who might be harmed. Because guided reading curriculums have been found to be ineffective, the latest thing in education is to make a new curriculum that formally injects more phonics back into the classroom. I believe these curriculums are now called "science of reading".

4) Whatever went on in Writer's Workshop seemed to go o.k. No complaints there. Schools don't focus on handwriting much anymore. But that's separate from the writing curriculum itself.

My mom was a trained elementary educator and she recommended that l supplement with a phonics-based book series that she had used with me and my sibling. So I used that with our kids. They have both done well at school so I can't say that they've suffered at all from their early curriculum. But we did supplement and also restricted their device use until mid-elementary. Devices with videos and games do crowd out early reading...even if tablets can access e-books.

I think the problems are probably more noticeable/likely to occur in schools where kids have less parental support. Because teachers do look for ways to improve each student's skills (often using little tips and tricks that are not in the curriculum). When you get a less homogeneously privileged set of kids or maybe a lot of mainstreaming without effective specialist support, that's when you'd likely start to see a lot of struggling or underperfomance driven by the weakness of the Calkins methods.

So, your results may vary. Especially because your local teachers may already be augmenting this curriculum with the elements they feel are necessary for success. And you can do some independent supplementing if you feel there are gaps in your child's abilities.

Here are two links that explain more about the problems with the basic assumptions of the Calkins approaches:

https://features.apmreports.org/sold-a-story/

https://www.educationnext.org/reading-wars-go-to-court-balanced-literacy-parents-sue-authors-publishers-columbia/