Emails show River Forest school officials using gender gap as reason for Lucy Calkins literacy

Emily Hanford’s award-winning investigation into a flawed theory of teaching literacy didn’t just put a nail in the ‘reading wars' coffin, it opened a new ‘season of accountability’ that still has River Forest District 90 school officials struggling to explain why they chose the side against students. 

Emails show school officials telling a parent that “aggregate data shows persistent disparity between boy and girl readers“ was good cause to abandon high-performing practices and adopt an unsupported Lucy Calkins curriculum.  Adopting the curriculum would rope the district into spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on associated books and training. The emails are from 2019 when residents first discovered the learning rates in English language arts had fallen to near the state average.

Further, whereas the district had given teachers leeway to use the best parts of different literacy packages, now all teachers were asked to use Lucy Calkins Units of Study, and this was going to foster “collaboration”.  In a land of sudden educational opposites, administrators described they would measure the strategy's effectiveness by asking teachers to interpret “more nuanced information” produced by an ineffective assessment.

Needless to say, school officials had SOLD A STORY to residents and hid it well by beginning to compare itself to IL State averages instead of high-performing neighboring districts, and relying on ISBE’s four-point scale to pretend their vision of “equity” didn’t have an academic consequence.

With bad ideas finally getting some good light, three common sense candidates won District 90 board member seats in 2023.  Since then a new curriculum director was hired who immediately replaced the Lucy Calkins curriculum.  One elementary school is choosing to rebound much better than another.  This leaves four seats open for the 2025 election.  These four were previously filled by members that voted for a pay-raise and promotion for the curriculum director who acknowledged “lowering the ceiling” on students in the name of "social justice equity".

E3 asks its readers – Are Oak Park and River Forest in their own whacky bubble, or have you been sold similar stories by school officials?  Send your response to info@thee3group.org and we’ll work to publish them with complete anonymity.

E3, where equity still means fairness. SUBSCRIBE

******emails follow******

From: Alison Hawley

Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2019 3:07 PM

To: XXXXXXXXXXX>; Ed Condon

Subject: Balanced Literacy Questions

Hi XXXXXXXX

My apologies for the delay in my response.  It's been a very busy couple of days.  Below are the answers to your questions. Have a great afternoon,Alison 

1.  What specific D90 reading data warranted need for change in curriculum and approach to teaching reading?

Data sources we considered were aggregate PARCC data and Fountas and Pinnell classroom based assessments.  Though there are some reliability concerns around PARRC, aggregate data shows persistent disparity between boy and girl readers, which warrants deeper investigation.  Because PARCC is aligned to the Illinois Learning Standards, it offers districts feedback on the extent to which curricula is aligned to learning expectations.  Though PARCC was not administered this year, PARCC testing content was incorporated into the new IAR, and therefore still relevant.Fountas & Pinnell provides teachers with more nuanced information related to student reading skills and behaviors and provides information about the range of reading skills and needs within a classroom.  This information is used to differentiate instruction and books for students.Both assessments indicate areas for student growth.  D90 is dedicated to supporting all of our student to achieve at the highest levels. We did not look at NWEA-MAP as it is not intended to be reflective of the classroom curriculum due to its adaptive platform, and is not aligned to our core programs.   

2.  Please provide the type (ex. self-training through reading, video, formal instruction in NY etc), and duration (measure of time) of training our teachers received before using the new literacy curriculum.

We are very fortunate that our teachers are strong, experienced reading teachers who are well-versed in teaching phonological awareness, phonemic awareness, phonics, word identification, guided reading, shared reading, and comprehension strategies.  Our faculty needs time to become familiar with new materials and plan lessons as opposed to being trained in new instructional practices.  To address the shift to reading workshop we engaged in the following: 

• Grade level teams engaged in summer work supported by Instructional Specialists.  Teams worked through the units together to plan for instruction in the Fall. 

• Staff developers from Teachers College Reading and Writing came to D90 to work with grade level teams to launch the reading workshop in their classrooms.  

• The staff developers returned again in Feb and March (depending on the grade level) to support units, that the grade level teams had questions about.

 3.  If training is ongoing after adoption, please provide the same as above.

• Support for teachers is ongoing through job-embedded support provided by our Instructional Specialists (coaches).  The coaches attend the weekly grade level meeting to plan units, review pre- and post-assessment data with their teams, co-teach units, and model/demonstrate lessons.  This is a core job responsibility of our specialists/coaches.  

• Thursday Professional Collaboration and Department meetings from 3:30-4:30pm are utilized to support teachers in their professional learning.  Agendas are collaboratively determined by teachers, Instructional Specialists, and me.

• K-4 grade level teams have half day release three times a year for 3 hours to learn and collaborate together.  Agendas are collaborative determined by teachers, Instructional Specialists, and me.

• We continue to work with Teachers College Reading and Writing Project staff developers who visit each Fall and Spring to work with K-2; 3-5; and 6-8 teachers.

• Teachers also request to attend relevant trainings or conferences outside of D90.  

4.  What phonics program is being used currently, and where does it fall short such that change is necessary? 

We are looking at phonics resources to narrow down the number of programs currently in use.  While all teachers are using a systematic phonics program that addresses their grade level standards, we are interested in adopting a single resource that unifies phonics instruction so teams can enhance their collaborations.  Teachers are currently using Jolly Phonics, Words Their Way, the Journeys phonics component, and Houghton Mifflin Spelling and Vocabulary. 

******

From: XXXXXXXX

Sent: Monday, April 22, 2019 2:00 PM

To: Alison Hawley ; Ed Condon  

Subject: RE: Balanced Literacy Questions

Thanks Alison,

Bcc’d board so we’re all on same page still.  Thanks too for speedy reply; speedier than my follow-up.  

There is still a ways to go in getting the community up to speed on the why, what and how around all the changes, and a clear transparent communication remains critical. 

A follow up so I’m crystal clear on answers.

 **On data warranting move to balanced literacy approach for teaching reading – I was hoping you could share the specific(s) cause and data so there was no room for inaccurate interpretation in your answer.  It will also help in understanding how improvements in teaching reading will be measured in the future. 

My interpretation of your answer is the gap between boys and girls was the basis for change to a Balanced Literacy approach.  If yes, this prompts a host of new questions around evidence, equity etc.  Please clarify with specifics if this is not the case.

** On curriculum-specific training before / during (2,3)

Based on conversations with educators and administrators, it sounds like our teachers may be getting less training than needed so that students realize real or perceived benefits of this curriculum.  Some suggested years of training were necessary before implementation, especially on this particular curriculum.  This says nothing about strength and experience of our teachers, only our ability to fully support the change to this curriculum.

**Phonics – Thanks for all this info.  It makes sense there will be collaborative benefits to aligning all behind one program.  Also, the state of understanding on how best to teach reading points to phonics as most important to the foundation, but not the whole answer.  Wherever we land on a single phonics tool, I hope it’s backed by years of use by others and results that outshine results from current programs and solve the cause for change in question.

Thanks again Alison and Ed.  Please feel free to add more info or point out where my interpretations are inaccurate.

XXXXXXXXX