Thread by @karenvaites

The most popular reading curriculum in America was developed by a charismatic woman with “little controlled research of her methods.”

She is only now embracing reading research that is >20 years old.

It’s an important story, well told by @DanaGoldstein:

nytimes.com/2022/05/22/us/…

This part has been 🤯 to the literacy community:

The breeziness with which Calkins forgives herself for ignoring a “half century of research” that she only accepted in recent years (after a few withering reviews of her product, which is being ditched by NYC and more).

My favorite thing about the article:

It centers the important question, “How did this happen that a curriculum whose author ignored reading research became the most popular in US schools?”

It’s a question I get *constantly*.

A fair succinct summary from @DanaGoldstein:

Another big factor: our discourse about education seldom dwells on our unfortunate & flat reading outcomes in last 2 decades.

How many parents know the 5 year reading proficiency outcomes in their district?

The national picture is echoed in the avg district, of course:

Yet a central issue is the one that @DanaGoldstein takes time to unpack:

Calkins’s methods fit the culture of K–12 education in many regions.

“see themselves and their students as intellectuals”
“joyful identities as readers”
individual book choices

It all sounds good…

In fact, if I knew nothing about reading research, I’d prob be drawn to it.

Calkins’s theories fit prevailing K-12 philosophies.

& most *district curriculum leaders* don’t know key research.

Well-explained by @edukings @robin_mcclellan @JaredMyracle:
edweek.org/teaching-learn…

My main quibble w/ article – & it’s a big one – is that @DanaGoldstein makes no reference to third party reviews of curriculum.

👉 Importantly, the issues go well beyond phonics.

& I think readers should know Reading Workshop is now lowest-rated in US.

edweek.org/teaching-learn…

Also, the path to better curriculum lies in checking those review sites for well-reviewed options, so I wish @EdReports had pride of place.

Second concern: @DanaGoldstein’s article makes debate all about phonics, when expert reviews go much further:

eduvaites.org/2020/01/25/und…

Really, take a moment to look at the details of the expert reviews.

Phonics is one of 4 major issues identified.

👉 So when Calkins completes her revision, she will only have addressed part of the problem.

Less privileged kids are especially impacted by the other 3 issues.

The risk of allowing conversation about reading to be all-about-phonics:

Authors like Calkins can take a “phonics patch” approach, fixing one part of the materials and leaving other big issues in place.

In fact, experts say Calkins is doing just that:

curriculummatters.org/2021/11/02/rev…

The webinar above is a must-watch to understand where things stand with the Calkins revisions.

TL;DR: the revised version isn’t going to be well-reviewed by experts, either.

@right2readproj, quoted by @DanaGoldstein, is a star in that webinar. @MsBerlinerRCD28, too.

I appreciate this thread from @natwexler, essentially making similar points and linking her good writing on the issues with Reading Workshop beyond phonics.

https://twitter.com/natwexler/status/1528411606056591361

And I appreciate this reaction from @MsBerlinerRCD28.

Educators are not reassured about the rewrite of the phonics component.

https://twitter.com/msberlinerrcd28/status/1528415429856833538

From one of America’s top educational researchers:

https://twitter.com/dtwillingham/status/1528334378358669319

Felt these reactions in my bones.

Note to @LucyCalkins: high-quality curriculum does include integrated reading & writing. So her crack is off-base.

Also, I have talked to SO MANY educators who think that #TCRWP is poor writing curriculum, for reasons like @auroraworeblue’s:

“Movements led by charisma”

Interesting reflections from @DanaGoldstein.

She notes one esp important issue: as @TeachersCollege changes approaches, they are terrible about getting updates to the field. And @LucyCalkins sometimes acts like a Facebook post is a product update.

https://twitter.com/danagoldstein/status/1528406869269692419

But this part is worrisome:

@DanaGoldstein validates concerns in thread above by suggesting @LucyCalkins’s work is done once the phonics problem is fixed.

“Very solid results with happy kids”…

No.

A) happy kids is a poor measure for reading proficiency

B) what’s v solid?

https://twitter.com/danagoldstein/status/1528406880313278464

And, could the “very solid” reading outcomes have been great outcomes if the curriculum:

1. Got kids working with grade level texts daily, which has a stronger evidence base than Calkins’s leveled reading groups?

2. Actively built knowledge & vocab?

eduvaites.org/2019/11/02/lev…

.@DanaGoldstein’s own reporting suggests that there is more to literacy.

Now we need to help reporters understand that the most popular K-12 curricula (Reading Workshop & @FountasPinnell) come up short.

And right on cue, here’s Calkins playing into the very large risk of over focusing the coverage and the conversation on phonics.

Predictable as the weather.

https://twitter.com/karenvaites/status/1528489692823445505

From @TNedu commissioner @SchwinnTeach.

She has led the effort to get high-quality ELA curriculum in nearly every districts, and her schools are reaping the benefit.

“I appreciate the changes, but go all the way.”

https://twitter.com/schwinnteach/status/1528736076499648512