Comments on: The Lucy Calkins Project

By: Chris Garden

Chris Garden — Sun, 13 May 2012 18:03:24 +0000

Just a few errors that I can point out from one reading. It is simply untrue that Calkins does not believe in teaching phonics and is a “whole language” advocate. The reading workshop includes a mandatory daily word work (phonics) element and small group phonics work. The writing workshop does not focus upon personal narrative exclusively and hasn’t for years; there are nonfiction and expository components included in every workshop outline that I’ve ever seen. If you want to be a critic of this program at least try to be fair about it.

By: Carey Seeley Dzierzak

Carey Seeley Dzierzak — Tue, 06 Mar 2012 04:08:01 +0000

Any good teacher knows that you cannot read a script. As educators we have a responsibility to be professionals. We need to make any resource come to life for our students. I have found Lucy Calkins’ work inspiring to myself and my students.

It is a “thinking teacher’s curriculum.” If you are not ready to dig in and think, it will not work. If you are willing to do the work, you will be pleasantly surprised.

By: Former Staff Developer

Former Staff Developer — Mon, 30 Jan 2012 13:15:56 +0000

I used to be a staff developer for Lucy, and it’s true that from the outside looking in, it looks like the work is too abstract. However, the things cited in this article are by someone who clearly does not see the context in which all of this is taught. When it’s implemented badly, when it’s treated as a program with a script, it’s really not good. It takes a great deal of staff development and being a learner yourself to teach this way well. When you do that, the results translate into wonderful classroom environments with a healthy balance of warmth and rigor, complete with high test scores and students identifying themselves as readers and writers, and teachers identifying themselves as learners.

Look into it.

By: Yenori

Yenori — Fri, 28 Jan 2011 15:27:40 +0000

I’m a ESOL teacher in my fourth year working in the USA. I was extremely flummoxed at the sight of teachers pulling their chairs at the “carpet area” to “teach” a mini lesson -which was not exactly taught, but read to them. They’d read from LC’s booklet about “watermelon, seeds, zooming in, etc” to students in third and fourth grade who only knew that a watermelon is a fruit. Even I struggled as I thought about what was going through the minds of those little ones. I’m concerned not only about the way LC’s methods are taught -so scripted and abstract, but also about these students who struggle with having to adjust to a new culture and having to strain their minds understanding analogies at such early age when they don’t even know the academic words of the English language. Moreover, standardized tests are given in grades third and above. It takes too much time to finish a unit if we really want to give every kid a fair amount of time to develop “their” personal writing skills, “their voices”.

Students ought to be ready to write all sort of compositions for these tests, not just narratives. They need to be prepared not just for tests but also for upper grades and life. Based on my experiences in VA, students dread writing essays. They rather remain in that imaginary world writing stories. I dare to say that LC’s way should not be the ONLY approach schools should use to teach Writing to their students. There should be a combination of methods to reach everyone’s needs and get the success you expect at the end of the day. I have suggested a change in the way Writing is taught in my co-teacher’s classroom, and in less than two months we have seen so much growth in our students’ compositions that we didn’t see in the previous years at this time of the year. They now enjoy writing essays with a more down-to-earth structured format.

It would be unfair to say that LC’s ideas are not good at all. I believe we should just use a combination of strategies and approaches to teach Writing and guide our students to be successful writers who really understand what they are doing and enjoy doing it!

By: scassutt

scassutt — Wed, 15 Dec 2010 00:28:28 +0000

I am a kinder teacher with 23 years of experience. This is the first year I’m using Lucy Calkins and so I am certainly no expert…but I’m also not impressed. “Small moments”, “zooming in” etc seem to be very abstract concepts for my students ( a large number of them who are not native English speakers) I’ve always had the children write, use invented spelling, etc. But I am finding these mini lessons rather stilted and disconnected from what the children can actually do. I love (and have used for years) a conferencing model so I’m quite comfortable with that process. I’m hoping that it will improve for me, but for the time being I’m finding LC to be stultifying.

By: Jerilyn

Jerilyn — Wed, 25 Aug 2010 19:58:54 +0000

I completely agree with “A NYC Teacher!” As an Instructional Literacy Coach and former Journalist, the negative bias is extremely obvious and Lucy Calkins’ quotes are taken totally out of context in this article. More research needed, Barbara Feinberg!

By: A NYC Teacher

A NYC Teacher — Thu, 19 Aug 2010 18:21:24 +0000

I would have taken this seriously if it wasn’t so obviously negative and subjective. When you talk (with evidence and in detail) about claims from both sides, then your writing will hold my attention.

I hate to state the obvious, but don’t we know by now that there are teachers and administrators who, through their flawed communication and lack of creativity/individuality, will take the curriculum and use it as a script? That is the fault of the individual, NOT the curriculum or Lucy or her staff developers. I have never NOT heard Lucy or her staff say, “This is a guideline. Make it your own.”

I have watched this curriculum change lives, including my own. And I, unlike the author, have real evidence and data to prove it.

By: Casey Watts

Casey Watts — Mon, 28 Jun 2010 00:02:34 +0000

I keep coming back to the comment the teacher made about implementing the material the third day of class. This material is meant to be implemented when the children are ready. What kindergarten child will be ready for any kind of core instruction on the third day of class? This time should still be spent developing the classroom community and teaching and implementing classroom procedures, especially for children who are foreign to the concept of “school”.

That being said, when implemented at the appropriate time and in the appropriate way, children will soar as writers when involved in the Lucy Calkins Project. My 3rd grade students, who have taken part in the Lucy Calkins Project since their first year in our school, are better writers than I ever imagined possible. They are truly blooming authors!

By: Judy Lightfoot

Judy Lightfoot — Wed, 10 Mar 2010 18:28:52 +0000

I drew on Barbara Feinberg’s article for a critique of the adoption by Seattle Public Schools of Calkins’s K-5 curriculum for students from elementary school through grade 10. Younger students need more opportunities to write about the world around them. And after a few grade-school years of Calkins, students are ready for more mature kinds of writing challenges that will help them become college- and career-ready. The article is posted at http://crosscut.com/2010/03/10/education/19654/

By: People, Some, With Words Have a Way at The Core Knowledge Blog

People, Some, With Words Have a Way at The Core Knowledge Blog — Tue, 25 Aug 2009 15:00:08 +0000

[...] in “writer’s workshops” concerned primarily with student engagement and developing a child’s “voice” – tends to be more concerned with teaching a child to have something to say, rather than [...]