I'm going to ramble here. This is not intended to be a thoughtful, well-educated and well-organized discussion of my issues with Columbia Teacher's Workshop. I'm feeling frustrated right now, because I'm trying to put together my lesson plans for next week, and that always puts me out of temper. I am just venting.
I'm not fond of the way my district teaches reading and writing. If you asked me why, and nobody really does, I'd say it's because I don't really understand the basic concept. And if I, the teacher, don't understand the concepts behind what I'm trying to teach... is there any chance that my students will?
Our district esposes the Columbia Teacher's Workshop school of teaching reading and writing... known to some as Reader's Workshop and Writer's Workshop, known to others as the Lucy Calkins method of teaching (Calkins herself apparently bristles as being given full blame, or credit, for this). I have never been fully and properly taught how to teach this way. I was, many years ago, presented with a hefty multivolume reading and writing program and told that I would be given instruction... but aside from time spent with my curriculum coach because I am so piss-poor at delivering this content, and aside from some incomprehensible sessions during professional development days, I swear I haven't.
Columbia Teacher's Workshop gained noteriety by tossing its highly-trained teaching students into underperforming urban schools and revamping the way reading and writing was taught. I can pretty much assure you that these young, idealistic and motivated teachers had something more than a set of wordy, overwritten teacher's manuals and a handful of professional development sessions to their credit before they worked their wornders.
All I have really been able to understand, over the years that I've been trying and failing to teach Reader's and Writer's Workshop, is that A) direct instruction of skills is Frowned Upon. B) You should be able to somehow convey a lesson's worth of meaning and comprehension to your students in under 10 minutes. C) You should be conferencing with your students daily. Okay. I can get behind this, except for the No Explicit Teaching of Skills part. I think there's definitely a place for direct instruction, modeling, and practice in the classroom.
Only that's not the way it goes. I've tried to read these scripted, overly-long teacher's guides before... they are deadly dull, and the modeling that goes on in the lessons described is nowhere remotely like I would ever teach my own students (because it's not ME teaching, it's someone else!) Only rarely am I able to parsel out what the teaching focus is... and when I am, it's not due to anything helpful written in the books. It's usually Dumb Luck. So first lesson learned: The people who put together this model of teaching have NO CLUE how to write for teachers. Teachers want things quick and simple. Give us the heart of what needs to be taught, and let us teach it. Don't spend pages and pages showing us how someone else would teach it.
And now, as I'm trying to write about my frustrations, I come upon my second problem: I get confused. Not only do I get confused about how to teach this male-bovine-produced-fertilizer, I get confused about why I'm confused. I don't like Reader's and Writer's Workshop, but I know for a fact that my reasoning is muddied and unclear - because my understanding of the program is muddied and unclear. There seems to be nothing about CTW that is simple and to the point.
My younger sister, who is a much better teacher than I am (she actually reads about how to be a better teacher, belongs to Facebook groups that help her improve her teaching, and seems intrinsically motivated to continually improve herself) suggests that I join a fan group on Facebook and admit that I am confused about how to teach Reader's and Writer's Workshop. I guess that's her way of telling me I need Professional Help.
I want to know why, when even looking at the CTW books pumps up my blood pressure, I would voluntarily submit myself to the scrutiny and censure of people who LOVE this method of teaching? I don't want to be taught how to love Lucy Calkins. (I'm sure she's a perfectly pleasant person on an individual level, truly I do.) I just want to know how to do what she promotes without losing my mind. I don't want to, or need to drink the Kool-Aid.
All I really want is the watered-down version of what it is I'm supposed to teach... the barest of eductational goals. I don't want to be teaching Unit 2: Reading the Weather, Reading the World. Please... if I wanted to teach my students about extreme weather, I'd have become a meteorologist. I want to know how to help my students understand informational texts without jumping through the hoops of "researching" extreme weather - which is what I'm supposed to do according to CTW, without being supplied with the appropriate texts for said research.
And don't even get me started on the next unit, which expects me to teach about the roots of the Revolutionary War (regardless of the fact that this is not in my curriculum, or in anyone's curriculum, at the fourth grade level). Since when do I need to teach my students about the French and Indian War to teach them what a primary source is - and since when, I want to know, does a FOURTH GRADER need to learn what primary and secondary sources ARE????? I'd be happy if I could teach my young readers how to find the main idea of a passage, and my young writers how to avoid writing run-on sentences!
I just want to know what to teach my students that is developmentally and age-appropriate. If the powers that be don't want me to do that by teaching a whole-class book in reading anymore, fine. Just tell me how to do this in a way that doesn't make my students gawp at me with the same mixture of despair and confusion that I feel trying to teach them.