Lucy Calkins: Waste Of Time And Money!

The 2nd grade had to take their writing test this week. Since we are using Lucy Calkins, because it is the curriculum of sanction, our kids work was high scoring and incredibly shallow! Let me explain:

I have mentioned before how LC uses ridiculous terms for things that already exist in academia; things like expository text, and narratives. LC gives these forms of writing new and stoopid names; expository text becomes "how to", narratives become "small moments". So much for academic language. Of course my students know the correct terms as well, and I tried to explain that some teachers and students like to call things different names because they think it will make it easier. I said easy isn't necessarily better, and since they are students, they should learn the real terms. They agreed.

The writing assessment they had to take was a "how to". We teachers had to demonstrate how to plant a seed using cups, dirt, water, and a bean. We teachers first got together to make sure we were all going to demonstrate this seed planting the same way. 1)Put dirt in the cup 2)Make a hole with your finger, and put in the seed 3) Cover the seed with dirt and 4) Pour water over the planted seed.

The kids watched me as I did it, talking as I went along to make sure they heard each step, and heard my "transitional" words; words like "next" and "then" and "finally". They watched. They got it. No problem.

Now, they have to write their "How To" thing (we don't even know what to call it besides a "How To"). Of course most kids were able to regurgitate each step with only slight variations. Only a couple kids forgot a step or two.

Then we have the scoring rubric (inherent problem, scoring by rubric). There are 2 measures: Conventions/Mechanics and Content. C/M are things like punctuation, spelling, capitals and the like. Most kids did pretty well, but of all the mistakes in all the papers, these were the majority. For content (their work regardless of C/M mistakes) most kids did very, very well. Why? Because a fucking monkey could do it!

Now before you get all upset with my salty language, let me tell you what I think is the reason for the reworked rubric and the LC push. Since my district has not met its AYP, we got sanctioned. We had to adopt a new curriculum as part of NCLB (I dragged this truth out of the Superintendent in a faculty meeting. He did not like having to answer it truthfully). We adopted LC. If we were to show a decline in scores, LC might get blamed, as well as us. But, since LC is the sanction (IOW, the government's baby and the district's preference) the district will not allow that to happen. So, to make sure children score high, students get the kind of test I described above.

There is no thinking in the test we gave. The kids did not have to create anything, analyze anything, think about anything. They had to remember something they saw me do once, and then reproduce it. Kids have great memories. Just ask one about the TV show they just watched; they will tell you everything!

My concern is this: When the CST test comes in May, "How To" will not be there. There might be an example of expository text, but it will not be called "How to" and it will not have a little picture next to each step (which, after teacher complaints, is now not necessary, but advised). The kids will now have a worse chance of doing well on the CST which is the Holy Grail of tests in California schools. And, since teacher accountability is tied to these tests, my job is in danger! [I know evaluating a teacher based on the scores of his students is forbidden in California, but not for long, I think]

There is no teaching going on with this. Okay, maybe a decent teacher can create lessons out of this crap, but why? We must limit their intake of knowledge so they can look good on paper. I do not like it. You parents should not like it. And don't get me started on how we teachers have to score these things.

I said don't get me started!

We sit down as a grade level and read papers from another class (not our own). We then give a first set of scores, from 1-4. Each paper then has 2 scores, one for conventions/mechanics, one for content. We then pass the paper on to another teacher on the team. They read it, score it, and then look to see how close they are to the other teacher's score. If the scores are within 1 point of each other, the final score is the lower. If the scores are too divergent, a third teacher reads the paper, not looking at the other 2 scores (that have been blocked with a post-it). They then give their score, look at the other 2, and, if they are within 1 point of each other, go with the low. You go low because it makes the teacher look good when the scores go up next time (I find this dishonest, wrong, and criminal). BUT, if the scores are too divergent, we do not have plan. The district does not have a plan. There is no plan when 3 scores are too divergent!

This lack of conformity, or standardization, makes for crap statistics. But, we will submit these scores, with their inherent bugaboos, and then study the score data and use it to inform our instruction. At least that is the plan. But bad data inform nobody about nuthin'! And what the fuck do we think we are going to learn by giving 2 scores to 7-year-olds?

I can glean what my students need just by looking at all 20 words on their paper. I do not need to aggregate the data, do a chi-square and then an ANOVA to see that Johnny forgets silent "e" when regurgitating in print what he watched me do live. I can tell that he forgets to capitalize just by looking at his paper for 3 seconds.

There is no joy in this kind of work anymore. I cannot be spontaneous (well, a little, but if I get caught, I might get dinged)or deep, or even exploratory with my students. They have to learn this stuff because, well, because they have to, dammit!

We spent 2 hours reading these papers and learned nothing. I will never look at the scores I had to write in 3 places, and then on some bubble sheet the district gets. They are meaningless to me, and to most. That is why I am sure that all the testing is not so much for the kids, but for the politicians who want to be able to show they are doing something to close the achievement gap. The only problem is, they just might be widening it.

Talk to your kid's principal. Ask him/her about Lucy Calkins. Ask why academic language is discouraged. Ask how the aggregated-yet-largely-bogus data will be used. Report back to me!

New Teacher: Find Other Work!

I am really frustrated. Everyday Math, Lucy Calkins, Words Their Way Spelling Inventory, and the rest are a waste of time and money, and they create frustration at the expense of educating the kids.

Here's what I mean. We teachers have to use these materials whether they are useful to us or not. We have to use them because of NCLB; accountability is now more important than education, joy, love, life, community and family.

Schools must show improvement, and new materials are almost never always the way to improve things. Indeed, we adopted Everyday Math because apparently we had to adopt something; it was time! Seriously! Not because EDM is better. Not because Scott Forseman was worse. It was just because it was adoption time.

I have mentioned my scores many times because they are at the core of my argument against forcing teachers to use certain materials. Most of the curricular materials a school uses have been produced for a huge market; many school districts nation-wide adopt identical materials. This nationalization of materials makes for watered down materials. They can't be rich and specific because some things may not go over well in certain places. So, we get lean materials, especially in history, social studies and science. Math, less so.

With math, because we all know if we do not lead the world in math and science we will not continue to lead the world, we adopt new materials--that are research based--hoping knowing they will improve scores. There is only one problem with this: Everyday Math was rejected by many school districts because of its spiraling sequence and overly complicated teacher guide, the plethora of silly materials that are embedded in the instruction making for less than rigorous lessons, and all the games of "math self-discovery". It is a bad program, and one that I do not need; look at my scores!

So, my high scores may go down if I have to implement Everyday Math. If my scores go down, and my candidate of choice is elected, I will not get my merit pay. However, if I refuse to use EDM, my scores will remain high, and I will get merit pay, unless I get fired for not using the curriculum provided, regardless of its lack of efficacy.

And don't get me started on Lucy Caulkins. We were given the writing assessment materials today. We were supposed to be teaching "How to" (the real words are "expository text") because that is what the first writing assessment will be on. Well, we have not been teaching what the assessment will be assessing because the assessment has a requirement in the rubric that is not a part of "How To" writing, except sometimes. Confused? I think the kids will be too.

This is the kind of negligence administration constantly foists on us, and then we look like the idiots. Teachers have complained about the lack of information this assessment provides for years. Each year our literacy leader (oxymoron) says they will be fixing it. They haven't, yet. It's only been my whole career, so, maybe they will get to it. Things take time, right?

Well, I cannot do it anymore. I sit in those damned meetings, make valid and important points by exposing the silliness, lies, or whatever else is being obfuscated by the principal and administration, then get a letter of reprimand in my personnel file for doing so.

I should be congratulated for my students' scores. I should be asked how I do it! But no, I am being told to shut up, regardless of the substance of my remarks (principal actually said that. My points are valid and substantive, but shut up). Shut up, sit down, be quiet, play dumb, and shut up again.

Well, fuck you. Got it!? Fuck. You.

I'm looking for other work. If you are a new teacher, or thinking of getting into teaching, you might want to think again. The future is not bright for teachers. Just like the taxpayers taking final responsibility for the greedy bastards, teachers are going to continue to take responsibility for the outcomes of kids they have no control over. If it seems unfair, and a little stoopid, well, you might be on to something.

Update: I forgot to mention that I cannot quit mid-year without being in danger of having my credential revoked. Teaching has changed, for the worse...

Academic Language: Good Idea.

I've gone off on Lucy Calkins, and for good reasons, not the least of which was the use of euphemisms instead of real academic language. I was taught (a shout out to my Teacher Education Program, whatever the hell it was) to use academic language with kids. I use it for a simple reason: If I must teach them a term for something, why not the accepted term? It has always seemed to me that we users of language ought to say what we mean, and use the most precise language we can to get our meaning across. We (I) may not always be successful, but we ought to shoot for precision and simplicity. Agreed? Good.

So, today the 2nd grade had a literacy meeting.

We were introduced to a new, comprehensive, state of the art (copyright 2002) spelling curriculum. The main goal was to use.....wait for it......here.......it........comes.........academic language! Yes, be explicit and use correct terminology, and you should start with the short vowels, moving towards the harder stuff like silent "e"s and stuff.

Can you believe it? I don't make this stuff up, and I am not dumbing it down. People spend hours, days, probably weeks and months thinking up evaluations teachers can do with students to see where their "weak" spot is. Is it dipthongs? Blends? Letter combinations (?)? Of course! It's all of those things. They don't even start to teach kids to read until 7 years old in Finland! Because kids, humans, are wired for language, and are ready to recieve it at about 7.

We can teach kindergartners to decode, and I say we should, since we can. But up until 2nd grade, these fundamentals are really all we need to focus on, and most kids start to get them right around 2nd grade.

If taught the fundamentals, and with practice, most kids get it, just at different rates, and with different degrees of success. Degrees of success are begun, affected, and influenced after the fundamentals are sound. If the fundamentals are the problem, then I say, you start to heavily anylize what kinds of mistakes the student is making; because only then--and I am talking about 2nd grade--is there a problem.

This overanalysis of student progress does not inform my instruction. Indeed, it impairs it. If I must now use a method and system that replicates what I already do, I will be forced to divert my attention from teaching to learning the new system. To what end? To the end that the district will have more data on MY TEACHING! It is not for the kids. Trust me. It is for me. Is that what you want? Or would you rather i do what I have been doing, which is what they are now advocating, like I said they always do (in that Lucy Calkins link above).

The Curriculum of Sanction: Lucy Calkins (updated)

Many school districts are forced to purchase, institute, and receive staff development on, new curricular materials due to failing to meet NCLB targets. Here is all you need to know about one of the most popular choices of districts: The Lucy Calkins Writer's Workshop, a useless heap of crap that no self-respecting teacher would rely on. Sure, there are a couple of good nuggets, but that's about it. You can get those nuggets from any veteran teacher, without the million dollar price tag. Here is the money section from a Hoover Institute review of Lucy's material:

So Do Her Methods Work?

Calkins is shaping the education of millions of children, yet no independent research backs the efficacy of her programs. Aside from grumblings from the New York City teachers required to work under her system, there has been remarkably little open debate about the basic premises behind Calkins’s approach, or even feedback on how the programs are faring in the classroom.

What controversy exists generally centers around two concerns: First, her programs do not explicitly teach phonics—which she calls “drill and kill.” She favors a “whole language” approach to literacy, which builds on the premise that reading and writing develop naturally in children. Her detractors argue that this lack of direct instruction leaves many children, especially those who already struggle, at a disadvantage.

The other argument, perhaps resonating with a larger audience, is that her methodology lacks real content, has no reference to any knowledge that should be learned. In The Art of Teaching Reading, she explains that she doesn’t want “all reading and writing to be in the service of thematic studies” but instead seeks to “spotlight reading and writing in and of themselves.” Calkins’s insistence that students should focus mostly on writing about their lives rankles the many educators who believe that curriculum should be focused on content-rich material, and that students should read and write about information outside of their own personal lives. Broadening one’s knowledge base strengthens reading comprehension, builds vocabulary, and deepens knowledge of the world, all of which help students understand the text, but also, as E. D. Hirsch writes, “what the text implies but doesn’t say.”

What has not been openly questioned is the assumption that Calkins has retained her ordinal stance, that it is the teacher’s job to midwife a child’s own, often richly imaginative voice, rather than impose her own. Calkins’s program originally gained its popularity, at least in part, because of its mission to help children make their distinct voices heard. She was known as a champion for flexible, creative teaching, uniquely attuned to children. “If we adults listen and watch closely,” she wrote in 1986, “our children will invite us to share their worlds and their ways of living in the world.” And while this impulse continues to inform aspects of her approach, she has tended over time to become increasingly focused on enforcing her own methodology; many of her techniques limit children’s genuine engagement with reading and writing. This insistence on only one way to do things, not surprisingly, has translated into a demand that teachers quiet their own impulses, gifts, and experiences, and speak in one, mandated voice.

Recently, Common Good, a bipartisan organization committed to “restoring common sense to American law” asked New York City public school teachers to keep a diary for 10 days and consider specifically “how bureaucracy impacts everyday teaching.” The results were presented in a town hall–style meeting attended by more than a hundred educators and union representatives. One of the topics was “mandated teaching,” which referred specifically to the required presence of Calkins and Teachers College in city schools. The responses were almost universally negative.

This entry from a teacher’s diary is typical: “Administrators expect all our reading and writing workshops to adhere to an unvarying and strict script.…For example: ‘Writers, today and everyday you should remember to revise your writing by adding personal comments about the facts.’ Sometimes I feel like I’m a robot regurgitating the scripted dialogue that’s expected of us day in and day out.”

A kindergarten teacher reported how she was instructed to ask her students, on the third day of class, “to reflect on how they’d grown as writers.” She explained that the children were still preoccupied with missing their mothers and felt the assignment was “ridiculous.”

The truth is there isn’t one way to teach writing, or a limited number of ways to have conversations with children about their imaginative work and their lives. Calkins would have done well to heed the counsel of Donald Murray, whose prescient caution she quotes in The Art of Teaching Reading: “Watch out lest we suffer hardening of the ideologies. Watch out lest we lose the pioneer spirit which has made this field a great one.”

Barbara Feinberg is a freelance writer whose work has appeared in such publications as the New York Times and the Boston Globe. She is the author of Welcome to Lizard Motel: Protecting the Imaginative Lives of Children, Beacon Press, 2005.

So, citizens, inform yourselves. Stop voting for a board of education that has no clue about education. Hold your superintendents responsible for implementing mandatory crap and calling it a best practice. Talk to a teacher about this stuff. Find out how we really feel (promise to keep conversations private, because we all fear for our jobs).

UPDATE: There are some folks who really like Lucy Calkins, and they feel as if those of us who rail against it are being unfair, or trying to hurt feelings, or something. This is a pretty silly way to get your point across. If you think Lucy Calkins--a whole language advocate--is the best way to go, then state why, don't whine and say it works for you, therefore it should work for all.

Also, let's make it clear that the program has different assets and liabilities depending on what age students are using the program, the competence of the teacher, the background knowledge of the teacher regarding the teaching of reading and writing (besides LC) and myriad other considerations.

My state scores for my 2nd graders the last 2 years in a row have far exceeded the state, district, and grade-level average in my own school--by and average of 10 points! I shun Lucy Calkins, I shun Everyday Math and Scott Forseman Math. Why am I successful? Honestly, it doesn't take much more than being smart yourself, learning a little theory, finding out what standards need to be met, and then teaching the kids! If you can't do it, well, then, you just can't do it. I believe teachers are born, not molded!

More railing against Lucy Calkins here. Some of the problems folks are having with these reviews are that they emanate from right-wing machines. Just because someone is Right, doesn't make them always wrong. People are simply more complicated than that (yes, simply complicated. it works)!