How Many Weird Experiments Need To Go Wrong Before the Berkeley Heights School District Corrects Its Approach to Teaching Our Kids?
During the pandemic, when our schools were shut down forcing our children to learn and educators to teach remotely, I became hyper-aware of the implementation of a new literacy program, “The Teachers College Reading and Writing Project.”
This program, sponsored by Columbia University’s Teachers College, and designed by Lucy Calkins, has proven to be a huge failure. As such, a tenured Calkins has stepped down (some speculate indefinitely) and is currently on sabbatical.
The “Teachers College Project” took a sharp turn from the fundamentals that have proven successful to our early learners, promoting children to guess words instead of providing them with a solid framework in phonics and basic vocabulary. This program was not based on any meaningful research; rather it was built upon a flawed vision based on ideology.
Are we going down the same, flawed and soon-to-be failed route with Building Thinking Classrooms?
It’s a possibility.
Peter Lijedahl’s Building Thinking Classroom program has come under fire for many of the same deficits in connection to research and evidence. The main difference between the impact of Building Thinking Classroom methodology of teaching and the Literacy Program is that children are having to pivot abruptly to this new fangled way of math after years of being taught in a very different way. For some, it works and those children are thriving. But, for most, it’s proving, like Calkins literacy program, to be a huge miss.
Whether it be the failed Teachers College Project, Building Thinking Classrooms model for math, and even the new state standards surrounding diversity, equity, inclusion, and health – it may all come down to where the focus should be: the teacher.
What really and truly matters is how the content is being covered, and the conversations that follow as a result of the content presentation. My biggest concern has never been our educators but what is being thrown and expected of our educators with little to no support. And, what happens when, as a result of poor decision-making, our students suffer? What is the plan B? Is there one?
Although there is no one-size-fits-all standard in teaching, it’s about finding the formula that works for each individual and likely based upon the student group in each classroom. The formula, when successful, contains multiple components of several methods in education because, after all, each student may learn differently. Our teachers, for the most part, understand and embrace this.
So, is the failure of the Teachers College Project or the inherent problems with Building Thinking Classroom a huge concern?
It depends.
For the most part, teachers go above and beyond to help and support our students, but when new material and techniques are thrown at them that don’t make sense, are they expected to stay straight and narrow, or are we allowing our educators to embrace their unique teaching style to help each student succeed?
What exactly are the standards we employ when introducing programs to our teachers and, by proxy, our children?
At Back To School Night, elementary parents learned about the new 95 Phonics Core Program (95PCP), which the teachers are just being introduced to, have yet to be trained in, but will be teaching it this year. I have no doubt those involved in choosing this program did their due diligence. Our approach to new programs should focus on research and meaningful input from professionals, educators, students and their families.
I do question why we seem to embrace the idea of forging forward with new programs instead of phasing them in. We have seen this highly flawed methodology over and over under the current BHPS administrations.
