# data[].attributes.headline
What is an area of reading instruction that you hope to grow in next year? 

# data[].attributes.subject
What is an area of reading instruction that you hope to grow in next year? 

# data[].attributes.headline
What are some things that have gone well for you in your reading instruction this year? 

# data[].attributes.subject
What are some things that have gone well for you in your reading instruction this year? 

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Most Americans have likely never heard of Lucy Calkins, but their children's teachers probably have. Calkins, a professor of education at Columbia University, has created one of the nation's most widely used reading instruction programs, and, according to a groundbreaking new report, the program is deeply flawed.

Calkins' Units of Study series, which thousands of American teachers are using to teach children to read, "would be unlikely to lead to literacy success for all of America's public schoolchildren," the report concluded. "Children who arrive at school already reading or primed to read ... may integrate seamlessly into the routines of the Units of Study model and maintain a successful reading trajectory. However, children who need additional practice opportunities in a specific area of reading or language development likely would not."

Listen to the latest episode of the Educate podcast to hear reviewers talk about the report's findings.

The report was released by the nonprofit educational consulting group Student Achievement Partners (SAP). The group asked prominent reading researchers to review Calkins' Units of Study, more commonly known as "reading workshop." It appears to be the first time a group of reading researchers has reviewed a curriculum and determined whether the lessons reflect more than 40 years of scientific research on how reading skill develops.

"As far as I know, [this review] is new and different and necessary," said Sue Pimentel, a founding partner of SAP.

The United States has a serious reading problem. Recent test scores show more than a third of the nation's fourth-graders can't read at a basic level. That's despite the fact that scientists have discovered so much about how the brain learns to read and what children need to be taught. "I think there's frustration out there," Pimentel said. "It was time to take a close look. Is there a mismatch happening between what the research is saying and what publishers are producing?"

Calkins' Units of Study is the third most widely used set of core materials to teach reading, according to a survey by Education Week. But, as APM Reports has shown, the Units of Study lessons and materials frequently assert an idea about how people read that has been proven wrong by cognitive scientists. The idea, known as three cueing, encourages children to look at pictures and use contextual clues to identify words as they are reading. Scientific research shows that skilled readers do not use cues to read words and that instructing children to use these cues teaches them the habits of struggling readers.

The SAP reviewers identified cueing as a major flaw in Calkins' program.

"The program strongly recommends use of the three-cueing system as a valid procedure for assessing and diagnosing a student's reading needs," noted David Paige, an associate professor at Bellarmine University and one of seven researchers who conducted the review. "This is in direct opposition to an enormous body of settled research and even runs contrary to the Units of Study foundational skills materials that support the teaching of phonics."

In 2018, Calkins developed a Units of Study for teaching phonics. Before that, her instructional materials had largely ignored phonics.

Calkins did not respond to an interview request from APM Reports. She sent a statement through her publisher, Heinemann, in which she said that she and her team will "learn from this review as we have learned from everything else."

Research shows that beginning readers who focus on letter-sound relationships increase activity in the area of the brain best wired for reading and that phonics instruction improves children's reading success.

Paige reviewed the new phonics curriculum and other Units of Study materials and found they don't provide children with the kind of explicit instruction and practice time that research has shown is needed for all students to develop good reading skills. "The materials are contradictory," Paige said in an interview. "The materials do talk about phonics, they do teach some phonics, but then it's all just contradicted with the infusion of this [cueing] stuff throughout the curriculum."

In December, Calkins denied that her method for teaching reading is based on the cueing system. But reviewers found numerous instances of it in her curriculum materials. "The three-cueing system is baked into this program," said reviewer Claude Goldenberg, an emeritus professor at Stanford University.

Goldenberg called Calkins "dishonest" for denying that she advises teachers to use a cueing approach. "Anyone who uses her program is using [cueing], whether they call it that or they call it something else," he said.

Reviewers were also asked to look at how well Calkins' materials cover other essential aspects of reading proficiency such as building vocabulary and knowledge. Calkins has long maintained that her approach supports the development of oral language and reading comprehension skills.

However, the reviewers found her materials lacking in these areas too.

Reviewers concluded that the program's approach to knowledge-building and language development is "too unsystematic to ensure that all students would encounter adequate challenge or receive sufficient supports for successful progress, particularly in grades K-2."

For students who come from homes where they're exposed to sophisticated oral language and who acquire knowledge from well-educated parents, the lack of explicit instruction in these areas might not be a problem. But other students may be left behind, according to reviewer Marilyn Adams, a prominent reading researcher who is a visiting scholar at Brown University. "Students who enter school having had fewer opportunities to grow academic knowledge and vocabulary depend critically on such opportunities to catch up and move forward," Adams wrote.

And even students who develop vocabulary and knowledge at home could be learning more than what Units of Study provides. "All students are short-changed when knowledge-building opportunities are missed," Adams wrote.

Reviewer Tim Shanahan, an emeritus professor at the University of Illinois-Chicago, agreed. "One suspects that students who are already on or above grade level in reading may do fine [in Units of Study] ... though they may not learn as much as they possibly could."

Reviewers did have positive things to say about Units of Study. They noted that the lessons are engaging and "beautifully crafted," and that the materials are organized "above all on the value of loving to read and the encouragement of reading and writing as lifelong habits."

"That's really important," Paige said. "Kids have to see a value in being able to read, and if they don't see a value, then they learn it as just something that they can do."

Research shows that motivation matters. But in interviews, reviewers noted that an assumption that seems to underlie Units of Study is that if children are motivated to read, they will learn how to do it. This doesn't align with scientific evidence that shows reading skill does not develop naturally through exposure to text. Children have to learn how written language works, and for most children, this requires explicit instruction.

In her statement, Calkins cited an analysis by her organization at Columbia, the Teachers College Reading and Writing Project, that showed students in New York City schools that have been using her materials and professional development for an average of 10 years outperformed students in other New York City Schools by 30 percentage points on the 2019 state reading test. She declined, through a representative, to provide a list of those schools.

It's important to note that curriculum is only one part of what leads to better reading outcomes for students, and that it's unlikely any one curriculum would lead to success for all students. "The most important tool in the classroom is a really knowledgeable teacher," Paige said.

But he noted that one of his concerns after reviewing Units of Study is that teachers may be picking up from the curriculum materials incorrect ideas about how skilled reading develops.

"Teachers have not received the best training in how to teach reading," Paige said. As a result, when they get into the classroom, "they really don't understand what to do. So they quite often rely on a curriculum to guide them. And unfortunately, so much of [ Units of Study] is flawed."

Listen to Emily Hanford and Stephen Smith discuss these events and more in the latest episode of Educate.
Share and discuss on Facebook

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Experts say widely used reading curriculum is failing kids

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Most Americans have likely never heard of Lucy Calkins, but their children's teachers probably have. Calkins, a professor of education at Columbia University, has created one of the nation's most widely used reading instruction programs, and, according to a groundbreaking new report, the program is deeply flawed.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Calkins' influential curriculum underestimates how difficult writing is for many students.
getty

Recent controversy about literacy guru Lucy Calkins has centered on her approach to reading instruction. But she came to prominence as an expert on writing, and her influence there has been even greater-and at least as harmful.

Roughly 40 years ago, an idealistic young teacher and aspiring writer joined a two-year research project on the development of writing in young children at a rural New Hampshire school. It wasn't the kind of scientific experiment that involves a hypothesis tested against a "control group." Researchers would just closely observe 16 children in classrooms-and in the case of the young teacher, Lucy Calkins, the observation centered on one third-grader named Susie.

But Calkins did more than observe. She herself had recently studied with a writer named Donald Murray, who introduced her to concepts like drafting and revision and helped her find her writerly voice-the kinds of things college and graduate students do in creative writing workshops. Calkins' not-so-hidden agenda was to bring that approach to young children and show them that their own lives and ideas were worth writing about.

Calkins described this study in her book Lessons from a Child, published in 1983. Dismayed to see that teachers assigned writing topics and then "merely corrected and graded the papers," Calkins coaxed them to let kids choose their own topics, write with minimal adult guidance, and give each other feedback on drafts of their essays during "workshop" time.

That approach was partly born of necessity: like most teachers, those at this school hadn't been trained to teach writing. Calkins noted with approval that one of Susie's teachers became more of a "listener" than an instructor in writing. Another confessed that she was "not an expert on writing," telling the children, "Each one of you has to be a writing teacher." In Calkins' view, that approach, with kids producing multiple drafts of essays on visiting grandparents or going fishing, was working beautifully. Teachers weren't so sure. "All that work," one would groan, looking at a finished product, "for this."

Calkins' research eventually led to a K-8 curriculum called the Units of Study in Reading and Writing, now estimated to be among the most popular literacy programs in the country. The reading units incorporate ideas that have long been central to the "whole word" and then "balanced literacy" movements, but Calkins' approach to writing is mostly her own contribution-at least, as applied to children.

Calkins' perceptions about writing have been spot-on in some respects. She initially understood that children couldn't write well about topics they knew little about, one reason she wanted them to write about their own experience. She also saw that writing needed to be seen as a process rather than a series of discrete assignments.

But her approach has rested on two flawed assumptions. The first is that writing skills can and should be taught separately from subjects like history or science-an assumption Calkins and many others have also made about supposed reading comprehension skills like "finding the main idea." Originally, she seems to have believed that if children honed their writing skills on personal narrative, they could transfer those techniques to the more challenging kinds of writing expected at higher grade levels.

The Common Core standards in literacy, released in 2010, pushed back against that idea, requiring more "informational" and "persuasive" writing at the elementary level. In response, Calkins expanded her approach to include those genres. And unlike some other "Common Core" writing programs, which expect students to write about topics they know little about, some of Calkins' informational and persuasive units have kids dig into a specific topic for four to six weeks.

But even then, her focus is on writing skills rather than the content itself, and the assumption is that teachers could choose to substitute a different topic. A second-grade unit on science writing uses the topic of force and motion, but teachers are advised that if that "isn't a good fit for you, you can transfer this teaching to another area of science."

As a result, lesson titles and "teaching points" are content-neutral-for example, "Writers of History Pay Attention to Geography," in a fifth-grade unit. But the topic used is Westward Expansion, and the teacher "script" illustrating the point centers on the Erie Canal. Teachers who choose another topic would need to know enough about it to come up with their own insights about the influence of geography. And young students are then expected to write essays applying these generic insights to other topics of their own choosing.

When I interviewed Calkins for a book several years ago, she told me that children should acquire substantive knowledge in their social studies and science classes, but that's not her focus. "When I'm teaching people to write," she said, "I'm teaching them a method-I'm teaching them how to do something."

That approach might work for personal essays, but it can run into trouble in units where the goal is to get kids to write "like a scientist" or "like a historian." Scientists and historians can write the way they do only because they know a lot about their topics.

Once students have a certain threshold of information about a topic, writing can be a powerful way to build and deepen their knowledge. But why teach a separate writing curriculum with its own history and science topics? If students are learning about, say, the Civil War in social studies-assuming their school even allots time for social studies-why shouldn't they use writing to build their knowledge about the Civil War, rather than learning to "write like a historian" about a different set of events during English language arts class?

Alternatively, schools could adopt a literacy curriculum that incorporates topics in history and science, an approach that has been shown to boost reading comprehension. But students benefit most if they're reading and writing about the same topics, and Calkins' reading and writing units aren't coordinated in that way.

The second and even more fundamental flawed assumption underlying Calkins' curriculum is that the "workshop" approach, developed for experienced adult writers, will also work for children as young as five. Like many others, Calkins seriously underestimates how difficult the process of learning to write is for most students.

She's a firm believer in having children write with little planning-"flash-drafting," she calls it-and produce prodigious amounts of prose. "Nothing is more consistently helpful for young writers than encouraging more writing," her Units of Study for kindergarteners advises. "That is why coaching your little ones to write more and more and more is crucial." The assumption that children need to write at length from the beginning has now become part of education orthodoxy, enshrined even in the Common Core writing standards.

But writing requires juggling so many different factors-forming letters, choosing and spelling words, organizing thoughts-that it can be overwhelming. Children may become paralyzed, not knowing how to begin. Or they may pour out pages of barely legible and largely incoherent prose. One second-grade teacher showed me a sample of that kind of writing, saying he knew he was supposed to "respond" to it but couldn't understand what the student was trying to say.

Calkins' curriculum expects kids to write essays and even "books" before they've learned to construct sentences, and they're left to figure out the intricacies of writing largely on their own. They might, for example, be directed to write key phrases on sticky notes and sort them into categories before writing about Westward Expansion, but if they run into trouble, teachers are advised to remind them that "the settlers encountered problems as well" and "had to problem solve."

Learning how to categorize and order ideas is hugely difficult-and despite Calkins' assertions to the contrary, even highly experienced writers often rely on detailed outlines (at least, I do). Something as basic as the concept of a sentence is so complex that many children, and even some adults, won't grasp it unless they get repeated practice in distinguishing complete sentences from fragments, under the guidance of a teacher.

Writing instruction has enormous potential to build knowledge and literacy, but to unlock its power, two basic principles need to be observed-both of which Calkins overlooks. First, writing activities should be embedded in the content of the core curriculum so that they build the knowledge we want students to acquire. Second, teachers need to modulate the heavy cognitive burden imposed by writing through explicit instruction and supervised practice, beginning at the sentence level if that is what students need. (I'm the co-author of a book setting out such a method, The Writing Revolution, but I have no financial interest in the book or the organization of the same name.)

Calkins' journey as a writing guru clearly started from a place of empathy and respect for children. But she's essentially asking teachers to throw kids into the deep end of the pool, tell them they're "swimmers," and let them sink. If kindergarteners balk at plunging right into drafting "informational" how-to books, and gentle coaxing doesn't work, Calkins advises teachers to tap on a child's page, "a gesture that says 'Get writing'" or conveys "a firm 'Now.'" If teachers tell Calkins their students' writing doesn't look like the examples in her books, she blames their low expectations, as I heard her do during a training session. "So often," she writes, "when we are in classrooms where the teacher says that the kids are finding a certain kind of writing 'really hard,' we'll ask, 'I wonder where they picked that feeling up?'"

But writing is really hard. It's not underestimating students' abilities to say they need a slower pace and more explicit instruction. Rather, for many students, providing them with those things is the key to unlocking their true potential.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Problems With Lucy Calkins' Curriculum Go Beyond Reading-To Writing

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Recent controversy about literacy guru Lucy Calkins has centered on her approach to reading instruction. But she came to prominence as an expert on writing, and her influence there has been even greater-and at least as harmful.

# data[].attributes.body
I need a better routine for giving all students frequent, timely and actionable feedback.

# data[].attributes.body
More frequent quick checks with opportunities to give feedback.

# data[].attributes.body
- I have never used Lucy and struggle with implementation and integration
- PD?

# data[].attributes.headline
-Literature circles.  Haumana love it.  Wish I had time to do more!

# data[].attributes.subject
-Literature circles.  Haumana love it.  Wish I had time to do more!

# data[].attributes.headline
Best evidence based online reading supports...

# data[].attributes.subject
Best evidence based online reading supports...

# data[].attributes.body
If we move away from Achieve, what is the best replacement?

Freckle?
Raz Kids?
HELP :)

# data[].attributes.body
Get started earlier, have a better routine!

# data[].attributes.headline
Balancing testing vs. higher order thinking?

# data[].attributes.subject
Balancing testing vs. higher order thinking?

# data[].attributes.body
How do we balance MAP prep and ELA instruction focused on higher order thinking skills?  MAP data vs. CFA data often looks very different for our grade.  What resources are their for improving our students higher order thinking skills and writing about reading?

# data[].attributes.body
- being consistent with reading time to incorporate small group / RTI time to focus on the individual needs

# data[].attributes.body
I would like to integrate more skills in read alouds throughout the year.

# data[].attributes.body
- able to integrate informational writing

# data[].attributes.body
I love read aloud and know how important it is. I'm good about doing it with mentor texts I'm using for reading lessons, but would like to be more consistent about doing it DAILY!

# data[].attributes.body
Looking for other assessments in reading besides F & P and MAP. Working on a scope and sequence of skills K-3 to better identify students who are needing additional support. Learning more about the science of reading to be more responsive/effective with students.

# data[].attributes.body
Students showed growth in spelling because of spelling groups run by our EA.

# data[].attributes.body
I would like to read aloud more chapter books. I especially appreciate the time to focus on vocabulary found within the stories.

# data[].attributes.body
- exposing haumāna to literature that they are probably not seeking out or aware of

# data[].attributes.body
I would like to keep up with consistency of reading groups and having an expected daily routine for my reading block. I feel that I have reflected a lot and I am ready to make changes next year!

# data[].attributes.body
Some groups completed chapter book clubs.

# data[].attributes.headline
More time for Literature Circle/Book Clubs

# data[].attributes.subject
More time for Literature Circle/Book Clubs

# data[].attributes.body
Making more time to do Literature Circles/Book Clubs to allow for deeper discussions with the book: Character traits, Central Message, Inferencing,...Developing a true joy for reading and seeing themselves as authentic readers and writers.

# data[].attributes.body
- a time to build their passion for reading
- apply strategies learned

# data[].attributes.headline
Kids loving our read aloud time with Charlotte's Web : )

# data[].attributes.subject
Kids loving our read aloud time with Charlotte's Web : )

# data[].attributes.body
I like being able to work in small groups. It has gone well this year and I have been able to clearly point out some pukas.

# data[].attributes.body
Does KES have any curriculum that we are all expected to utilize?

# data[].attributes.body
Tale of Desperaux!

# data[].attributes.headline
One thing that I thought went well this year was having read aloud everyday in our ELA block and/or after our meditation block after lunch. The kids loved it and it helped them to grow in their love of   reading.

# data[].attributes.subject
One thing that I thought went well this year was having read aloud everyday in our ELA block and/or after our meditation block after lunch. The kids loved it and it helped them to grow in their love of   reading.

# data[].attributes.body
A glow for me this year is when we would be doing reading groups and I was able to integrate Daily 5 into the rotations. I found my students were engaged and enjoyed the rotations.

# data[].attributes.body
I focused a lot on the quality of student discussions in book clubs and I feel like they have made a lot of improvements in using staying on task and text evidence in their book club discussions.  It's also helped them do more purposeful stop and jots.

# data[].attributes.body
We read Lemonade Wars. The kids loved it! Then they found the series in the Media Center and checked them out to read independently.

# data[].attributes.body
My students are reading with greater confidence and independence. They feel better about themselves as readers.

# data[].attributes.body
...and to what extent are we expected to implement it. Is there someone on campus who can specify exactly which parts of this program is required? Do we agree that some parts of this program are ineffective? Are we looking to recent research to support our reasons for implementing any particular program?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
EdReports empowers districts with free reviews of K-12 instructional materials. Our reports offer evidence-rich, comprehensive information about a program's alignment to the standards and other indicators of quality.