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.
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.
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.
Anonymous wrote:Which systems use/used this?
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.
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 $$$ for her. So sick of her cult and the teachers who think she is great. They have HARMED a generation or two of students in this country. Disgusting.
Her writing program is equally dangerous. Having kids write flowery sentences before they formulate a structured sentence with a noun and a verb and have one topic to a paragraph and sequential order. If you have enough adjectives your writing is perfect and you are a writer to Lucy’s standards even if none of your writing makes any sense.
Anonymous wrote:
Yes, they teach the old school way - memorization, using a dictionary, etc.
It "worked" for generations and generations (including us DCUMers), BUT the difference it now public schools mainstream SN kids. These kids don't have the mental bandwidth, executive function, the attention span, or whatever other hinderance to do things like memorize, study for a test, sit still long enough to learn the mechanics of grammar (identify a predicate nominative), or master long division. So public school moved the goal posts and leveled the playing field and started using cherry-picked curricula so that learning was "easier". That is why public school (FCPS comes to mind) doesn't use textbooks. There is no textbook that covers their wonky, all over the place, and hard to follow curriculum.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Districts started to DROP her curriculum. She has never followed the science of reading. Her curriculum also doesn't promote knowledge. It's all about the $$$ 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.
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.
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.