Ignite Literacy Services

I was first introduced to the ideas of Lucy Calkins during a summer institute with the South Mississippi Writing Project. We discussed both her and Marie Clay as they applied to writing, particularly writing workshop, which has a lot of beautiful elements to it. I had never heard of the 3-cueing system until I listened to Emily Hanford’s podcast, Sold a Story. I never taught the 3-cueing system, and don’t know anyone who has, although apparently a lot of schools used it, and it’s now proven to be ineffective especially when compared to reading programs that include explicit phonics instruction. 

Eh, it was the ’80s. Lucy Calkins didn’t even have the internet, y’all. There were lots of bad ideas floating around, from mullets, to neon Spandex, to the 3-cueing system. I’ll give her a pass for her early work, but I do believe that when you know better, you should do better. Advancements in technology, neuroscience, and reading research have come a long way since the ’80s, and our nation has not responded as quickly as we could have.

I noticed the loaded language, emotional rhetoric, and a tendency to dichotomize a situation that is actually a lot more complex. She has a story to sell herself, and that irony was not lost on me. 

Despite the theatrics, Sold a Story is worth a listen.

By All Means, Let’s Teach Phonics

Research does show that teaching 30 minutes of daily explicit phonics instruction in K-2 improves reading. I don’t think this is a renewal of the reading wars, but rather an indigent outcry that schools have not yet implemented what many know to be best practice. 

Current best practice, anyways. Hopefully, in another 40 years, some of the things we are doing now will seem foolish because there will be more research that shows how we can better teach literacy skills to children. Phonics seems here to stay though.

What Worries Me

The podcast features several people including parents and teachers who are outraged over the fact that these outdated theories were incorrect. They feel duped and demand someone be held responsible. But… aren’t they also responsible? Anyone can write about any theory they want, but it is the duty of the colleges, administrators, curriculum specialists, and anyone purchasing the programs to do their due diligence in making informed decisions. Why are they outraged that Lucy Calkins ignored research that they had equal access to? 

The real problem is not that Lucy Calkins ignored evidence, but that teachers have been conditioned to expect other people, including experts, publishing companies, administrators, and those in charge of choosing curricula to be more accountable for what happens in their classroom than they are.

I don’t believe Lucy Calkins should be culpable for the fact that we as educators have not responded as quickly as we could have to research. What happens in our schools is our responsibility.

I believe in a very empowered teacher. Teachers have college degrees. Teachers are professionals. Teachers are the experts in their classrooms. Teachers should be able to decide when and how to use purchased curricula as a resource and couple that with their own expertise to meet the needs of their individual students. As soon as we see something not working for some students, that’s our cue to find a strategy, program, or practice that can help them be more successful. 

Is it overwhelming?

Yes.

Do teachers need better prep programs and ongoing professional development?

Double yes.

But can we please stop presenting teachers with packaged curriculum that purports to be the magic answer to all our reading woes? I’m already seeing publishing companies jump to brand their programs as the “Science of Reading.” I’m afraid that administrators and teachers will be quick to buy these programs in the never-ending search for the golden fleece that will cure every reading problem for all kids without doing the research behind the methods themselves. I hope these programs do help more kids read better, but I do not think these programs remove the responsibility of college professors, administrators, and teachers to educate themselves on their craft. 

Was I a perfect teacher? Absolutely not. I know that I didn’t teach phonics as explicitly and systematically as I should have. I did do the best I could, and I like to believe all teachers, all humans even, are doing the best they can. The good news is that we live in a time when we have access to research that can inform our decisions. Our best continues to evolve and expand as we learn and practice and reflect. Let us all seek to educate ourselves as we continue to do what we believe is best for children.

While phonics is enjoying its well-deserved time in the spotlight, let us not forget that research shows that phonics is just one of five components of a strong reading program, along with phonemic awareness, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension, with comprehension being the point of all reading endeavors. 

But don’t take my word for it. Go read the research for yourself and become empowered to make your own instructional decisions. 

If you’re not a fan of digging into research, at least read the writing of people who read the research. Start with Tim Shanahan’s blog. 

Let’s allow Lucy Calkins to take her money and fade into the background in peace. Bless her heart. 

Subscribe if you would like free literacy resources and check out my other blog posts to see what you’ve missed!

Do you know what process can help solidify phonics instruction? Writing! If your school could use writing professional development in grades 3-8, check out my Services page.

• Facebook
• LinkedIn