Your Feb. 29 cover story, “When Kids Can’t Read,” references Springfield public schools and my curriculum, Units of Study.
I applaud Springfield for attending to the individual differences among children as readers. It is fundamentally important to recognize that children are all different. Assessments from reading specialists and individualized support for those who need it are foundational parts of a successful education strategy. Some children will need help segmenting and blending sounds as they read, while others need more opportunities to read nonfiction texts and to develop world knowledge and vocabulary.
Springfield’s programs such as Real Men Read and Compass for Kids similarly show that the district is making sound, research-based decisions that will move readers forward. The Real Men Read program provides valuable mentorship, allowing children to grow up seeing themselves as readers and thinking, “Reading is something cool people do.” And Springfield’s decision to supplement classroom learning with after-school and summer programs to support readers is wise. Kids need time to practice reading. These efforts make a real difference. These programs matter.
But I am sorry that, while Springfield is doing so many things right, the cover story contains inaccuracies about “balanced literacy” and about my curriculum, Units of Study, that may indeed ultimately hurt students.
Balanced literacy works.
My curriculum, Units of Study in Reading, Writing and Phonics, is a curriculum that has been continually developed and refined for 40 years, informed by classroom-based research, by rich assessments of students and by scholarship. The approach would never have been adopted in approximately 25% of the nation’s schools if it didn’t yield results. It is the curriculum in a huge number of Blue Ribbon and Beat the Odds schools. The data overwhelmingly indicate that schools partnering with us demonstrate meaningful improvements in student performance and that improvements only deepen over time.
Although there were inaccuracies in the story, the article was not wrong in saying that some whole language educators used to teach phonics through immersion, hoping children would learn their ABCs through immersion, just as they learn oral language. It is true that studies have shown that most children benefit from explicit, structured instruction in phonics.
The errors in the article come from the author confusing balanced literacy with whole language, and more specifically, from confusing Units of Study (and me) with a belief that children grow best from laissez-faire, natural instruction. I have always been a strong proponent of explicit phonics instruction, and in general, of direct, explicit instruction. Anyone who knows my work knows I have written literally thousands of minilessons in which kids are taught through the teacher naming, then demonstrating, then guiding kids to practice a skill or strategy.
I never bypassed phonics instruction in my approach to teaching reading. My very first book on teaching reading, which predates this latest “science of reading” debate by nearly 20 years, devoted three chapters to early reading and one of those three was to phonics. I have written 22 books on phonics, well over 2,800 pages. And I have written hundreds of decodable books, including the series Jump Rope Readers, which are regarded by many as best-in-class.
False claims of a dramatic new reading crisis have whipped the public into a frenzy, leading whole states to mandate totally untested statewide reforms in reading. Let’s instead pause, check the facts (yes, reading scores dipped during COVID, but over the 20 years prior, they have been slowly, steadily improving) and look with more care at exactly what has and has not worked for America’s young readers.
I know that podcasts, blogs and social media posts have made me a scapegoat for the imperfections of early literacy education, and so I understand why your newspaper echoed those claims. But that narrative is filled with untruths and brims with blaming and shaming, a toxic brew that will not help our country, nor serve Springfield’s children.
Promises of a magic bullet are tempting. Some states are mandating a short list of required programs, each costing millions of dollars, and knowledgeable educators in those states are howling with protest. This is playing out in Connecticut right now – districts like Wilton, Cheshire and Greenwich are prime examples. Rushing to purchase a whole-district basal that channels all students to read the same snippets of books despite wide differences in students’ reading levels is not apt to be a panacea. Many of those programs have been evaluated as culturally harmful, and none of them have been implemented in a district like Springfield with strong results. Some come labeled ‘Science of Reading,’ but the science of reading is neither a curriculum nor a method for teaching children. And in any case, it alone will not take a K-12 system to rich, cross-disciplinary standards-based work. In a too hasty effort to translate ideology to curriculum, children suffer.
It is clear there are some wise, informed educators at the helm of Springfield. Those educators need the opportunity to do a school-by-school audit to determine what the needs are in Springfield. It may be that the district needs to adopt a more tightly controlled phonics program, or to offer teachers more professional development in phonics. But as Elfrieda Hiebert’s analysis of kids who do not do well on the National Assessment of Educational Progress shows, it is just as likely that Springfield’s upper-grade students need more access to engaging, accessible nonfiction.
Reform in literacy will require additional funding. District 186 is underfunded. It sounds as if Springfield may be ready to invest in early literacy, and that is heartening. When spent thoughtfully, funds could make a huge difference in classrooms across Springfield.
Lucy Calkins is the founding director of both Mossflower Reading and Writing Project (formerly the Reading and Writing Project) and of Teachers College Reading and Writing Project.
This article appears in Spring Guide 2024.
I applaud Calkins for responding to the inaccurate misleading article that wrongly criticized Springfield for their use of the curriculum, Units of Study. It is time to get the facts straight and the facts include acknowledging that Calkins has always supported a rigorous phonics program. She knows that phonics is one, not all, of what kids need to become skilled readers. It sounds like Springfield has been doing some important work and it has been grossly under-funded. Professional development is important, alongside curriculum.
When queried about pricing, Calkins’ spokesman responded in an email, “Each school that works with TCRWP designs a professional development package that meets its needs and budget.”
According to Times reporter Dana Goldstein, “schools paid up to $2,650 for a seven-hour visit from a consultant with Professor Calkins’s group and were encouraged to purchase 20 visits per year.”
The New Yorker has an excellent story about Professor Calkins’ company selling this program to school systems. Written by Jessica Winter. The article includes some primary sources that focus heavily on the programs’ failure to address phonics. Calkins finally gave in and included phonics in her program in 2020.
Lucy Calkins is a fraud, and it seems she will never learn and instead continue to misrepresent the truth while digging her head deeper into the sand.
Her claim that the program has been refined for decades is only partially true when you account for the fact that the phonics component has only existed for 4 years.
Her claim that she wrote about the science of reading falls flat when you actually open up “The Art Of Teaching Reading” turn to page 200 and see her talk about the beauty of a kindergarten teacher having students explore teh shapes of letters in each others names to discover letter idenfitication. This method of teaching letters would inform Unit 1 of her phonics program, which only explicitly teaches a few letters of the alphabet before children are asked to teach themselves the rest.
I would rather live in a world where Lucy Calkins would engage with reality with honesty, instead her walls are built up too high to see the damage that is done by her work.
Those who devalue teachers and the individual needs of students will always support the ineffective plans of the SOR proponents.
It is critical that Professor Calkins has taken the time to correct the misinformation you are spreading with your article titled “When Kids Can’t Read.” As a teacher with my masters in literacy curriculum and instruction and who has utilized the Units of Study my entire career and adopted the Units of Study in Phonics as soon as they became available; I can confidently say based on my personal experience using the phonics units and reading many of Calkins’ texts that the phonics units are well written, effective, and based in sound research. As time goes on and research brings new information to light, the work that Calkins and colleagues do is adapted to ensure that what is best for kids is front and center in the work being done.
Many well intended organizations are relying on information they find such as articles from a paper like yours. It is disheartening that, as evidenced by your article “When Kids Can’t Read,” it seems your newspaper is also relying on misinformed and mal-intended information. Disconcerting that with the reach your paper has that you would not ensure the information you have is accurate to support teachers and learners of all kinds.
Professor Calkins continues to do all that she can to support the development of learning and love of literacy for all.
Getting this insipid multi-millionaire ousted from Columbia is one of the benchmark achievements of the Science of Reading movement.
More than 2/3 of 8th graders test as not-proficient readers. Most have been taught to read with balanced literacy and a large percentage with Units of Study. Please tell us how such a high percentage of students who are not proficient readers is considered successful.
I applaud Lucy for speaking out. She is supported by some of the most highly qualified in our literacy educational instruction nation wide. All students deserve to be educated by highly trained professional educators that have the been given the discretion to determine which strategies each student needs to succeed. A comprehensive balanced literacy approach allows educators to do just that. Public education will likely not improve until legislators and misinformed conservatives allow trained professionals to do what they do best- teach! Just as all students are not the same, no one method or program will ever meet all of their needs. This is the very foundation upon what a comprehensive balanced literacy program is designed to do. Thank you Lucy for continuously leading the way.
Hi I am wondering who the “many” are that regard the Jump Rope Readers as “best in class” that statement should be clarified as to who those many are. They are certainly not teachers who try to use them. The lessons in the new units are long and most require that you read something ahead of time, oh, and make sure the kids have this that and the other thing with them. It’s cobbled together to try to keep the program relevant and it’s a mess.
Supriya Prakash
I’m Supriya , and i have been using the Reading and writing workshop for more than a decade.It’s hard to explain in just words the way it has changed the lives of our children, it has made them true authors and readers who bring stories from authors around the world into their lives.Reading workshop has transformed our decoders into readers, into thoughtful changemakers and i will always be grateful that I have discovered how to teach through this method.We’re standing proof that the method works.Thank you Lucy, you will always be the backbone of our curriculum.
I am so glad Lucy Calkins has spoken out against the misrepresentation of balanced literacy. As she said, and what I have also experienced as both a primary grade student and as a high school educator, the issue is partly in implementation. That’s true with everything. There is no such thing as a teacher-proof curriculum. And, the answer is not more micromanagement and policing of the work. Aside from the dehumanization and masked misogyny of taking potshots at a feminized aspect (literacy ed) within the feminized profession of 3K-12 education (feminization here meaning the devaluation of work because it is seen as “women’s work”), it doesn’t work. Some have derided BL as being solely for the enjoyment of the educator practicing that approach. Know that just like other work, teachers, too, are motivated by what Daniel H. Pink outlined in his book Drive: autonomy, mastery, and purpose. So teacher enjoyment of the work is not without merit. But, let’s put all that aside and say that the way forward is to choose the best, however that might be defined, approach for our students. Shifting to “Science of Reading” programs (not to be confused with pedagogies and resources based on a comprehensive, actual, science of reading) will create different problems. A return to decontextualized skill-based instruction means that students will learn to be good “workers” not leaders who might question the status quo. They will learn to read well enough (maybe) to vote but not, as Jonathan Kozol has written, to vote in their own best interest. A thought: let communities (including families, students, teachers, school leaders, perhaps, local electeds) experience (not be presented too, actually experience,take them for a test drive) different programs as students would and then discuss to make an informed, collaborative decision. And, then, commit the resources for educators to really learn how to implement the program including frontloaded, quality professional development, embedded supportive coaching, and ongoing time to reflect and refine teacher practices.
I really don’t know what to say about this article except the statements are not based in research or universal understanding of balanced literacy vs. structured literacy. Every child benefits from structured literacy because it teaches reading the way our brains learn the skill of reading.
She is a fraud and a revisionist of history. She has no clue to teach reading to a child with dyslexia especially. She makes me sad. Please just go away Lucy! We are finally starting to fix things, we don’t need you telling us what we have lived is not true.
These comments may or may not be from people who have any training, education, or experience in the field of reading. The negative comments perplex me when they descend to personal attacks. There is no need for that, but I have seen it before.
If one reviews the history of reading curriculum, one can discover the number of times that a phonics-first approach to teaching reading has risen from the ashes. Having this decoding information is, of course, a piece of the puzzle for new readers, but truly it is not the whole pie.
Let’s get serious and admit that knowledge of phonics is easier to test, but there is not necessarily a direct correlation between sounding out individual words and comprehending a passage of text.
The degrees of anger that are leveled in these posts is also concerning and makes me question what the real root of the issue is.
The developers and publishers of this supposed “science of reading” curriculum will make good money from the school districts that are shamed into purchasing it. Sadly, in time, it will be challenged and replaced by another new approach as it has been in the past.
I hesitate to speculate as to why we keep returning to phonics, but it we tried to teach children to talk using this approach, they would never learn to speak. Think of all the rich context children are immersed in as they learn their native languages. Why deprive new readers of the same access and delight?
I do hate to see school districts once again changing directions and spending taxpayer monies on materials that will not answer the question as to why Johnny isn’t reading proficiently.
The issue of access to and skill in literacy is a bigger challenge than schools alone can provide.
And yes, I studied and taught literacy for over forty years.
It’s frustrating that some educators keep pushing ineffective reading programs. I agree that the “science of reading” is about understanding how children learn to read, not a prescriptive program. Teachers need the freedom to develop their own practices based on this knowledge.
It’s encouraging to hear about educators developing structured literacy materials with good results. I wasted ten years teaching reading and writing workshop because it was mandated by my school. While it seemed promising, it didn’t provide the foundational skills many students needed. I finally abandoned those methods and feel liberated to teach in a way that’s truly effective.