Why Lucy Calkins’ Reading Curriculum Needs a Rethink: My Perspective

If you’ve been teaching as long as I have (let’s just say it’s been over a decade), you’ve likely heard of Lucy Calkins and her reading curriculum, “Units of Study.” For years, her approach has been a darling in classrooms across the country. It emphasizes inspiring a love of reading in kids, which, at face value, sounds like exactly what we’d all want, right?

I mean, what’s better than a kid cracking open a book just for the sheer joy of it? But lately, there’s been a storm brewing around her methods, and as someone who’s seen both the rewards and pitfalls of her system, I feel compelled to weigh in.

Let’s talk about what’s really at stake here: phonics. Yes, the good old building blocks of reading. Calkins’ curriculum has been criticized for putting too little emphasis on phonics instruction.

And honestly? This criticism is fair. I’ve worked with kids who can name every book in the Magic Tree House series but struggle to decode basic words like “apricot” or “forest.” That’s not a love for reading; that’s surface-level familiarity.

When we deprioritize phonics, we’re setting kids up for failure, especially those who don’t have a literacy-rich home environment to fill in the gaps.

What’s the problem?

In my classroom, I’ve had plenty of students come in who seemed to enjoy stories but couldn’t actually read them independently. I remember one year I had a student, Mia, who adored listening to audiobooks. She’d talk endlessly about the characters and plotlines, but when it came to reading even a short passage out loud, she stumbled. She couldn’t break down words phonetically because no one had taught her how.

And guess what? Mia was using a curriculum rooted in the “Units of Study.”

Mia’s case isn’t unique. Critics of Calkins’ methods argue that her curriculum leans too heavily on the idea that kids will just “pick up” reading naturally if they’re surrounded by enough good literature. That might work for some kids, especially those who grow up in homes where parents read to them daily. But for children from less privileged backgrounds, it’s a gamble—and one they can’t afford to lose.

The shift to phonics

In recent years, there’s been a renewed emphasis on phonics-based instruction, often referred to as “the science of reading.” And honestly? It’s about time. Research has shown us that phonics isn’t just a nice-to-have; it’s essential.

When you explicitly teach kids how to decode words, you’re giving them a lifelong skill. They’re not just memorizing words by sight; they’re learning how to break them down and build them back up. It’s empowering.

I’ll admit, as a young teacher, I used to buy into the idea that we should prioritize fostering a love of reading over drilling kids on phonics. I’d create cozy reading corners with bean bags and fairy lights, stack the shelves with diverse and engaging books, and hope that my students would just absorb the magic of reading.

But year after year, I’d see kids struggling because they didn’t have the foundational skills to make sense of the words on the page. It was heartbreaking.

Balancing love and literacy

Now, don’t get me wrong. I still believe in creating a classroom environment that inspires a love for reading. I’m not about to trade my bean bags and fairy lights for desks lined with drill-and-kill phonics worksheets. But I’ve learned that you can’t skip the basics. Phonics and a love for reading aren’t mutually exclusive; they’re two sides of the same coin.

Phonics and a love for reading aren’t mutually exclusive; they’re two sides of the same coin.

Take my student, Ethan, for example. Ethan was a reluctant reader who’d groan every time I handed him a book. But when I started incorporating structured phonics lessons into our day, something clicked. He began to see reading as a puzzle he could solve, rather than an impossible mountain to climb.

And once he had that confidence, he started picking up books on his own. One day, I caught him curled up in a bean bag reading Dog Man and laughing to himself. That’s the balance we’re aiming for: kids who can both decode words and delight in them.

The broader implications

This isn’t just about individual classrooms; it’s about systemic change. When schools adopt curricula like “Units of Study” without questioning its effectiveness for all students, they’re perpetuating inequities.

Kids from wealthier families might get supplementary phonics instruction through tutors or enrichment programs, but what about the kids who don’t have those resources? They’re the ones who suffer.

As educators, we have a responsibility to advocate for practices that work for all students, not just the lucky few. That means pushing back against trends or methodologies that don’t hold up under scrutiny.

It means being willing to adapt and evolve our teaching practices as new research emerges. And it means acknowledging when something we once believed in—like Calkins’ approach—might need to change.

Moving forward

So where do we go from here? For starters, schools need to invest in professional development that equips teachers with the tools to teach phonics effectively. It’s not enough to just hand us a curriculum and expect us to figure it out. We need training, resources, and ongoing support.

Parents also have a role to play. If your child’s school is using a curriculum that doesn’t prioritize phonics, ask questions. Advocate for evidence-based practices. And most importantly, read with your kids at home. Even ten minutes a day can make a world of difference.

As for Lucy Calkins, she’s acknowledged some of the criticisms and updated her curriculum to include more phonics instruction. That’s a step in the right direction, but it’s not enough. We need to keep the conversation going, holding all educational leaders accountable for the materials they produce and the impact those materials have on our kids.

At the end of the day, our goal as teachers and parents is the same: to give our kids the tools they need to succeed. And that starts with making sure every child has the foundational skills to read—because once they have that, the love of reading will follow.

(For privacy purposes names have been changed).

2 thoughts on “Why Lucy Calkins’ Reading Curriculum Needs a Rethink: My Perspective”

  1. I think you come closest to identifying the real underlying issue when you say, “That’s the balance we’re aiming for: kids who can both decode words and delight in them.” Still, I think you miss the mark by relying on the assumption that decoding words is they key to unlocking education for children. It’s easy to see the world through presentist lenses that assume getting kids to read is the key. But 150 years ago, literacy rates were higher than they are now, yet mandatory education as we have now was not the norm. So how did so many learn to read, learn about the world, before “the science of reading” came about? Moreover, why does it take 6 or 9 or 12 years to teach reading?

    The Magic Tree House audiobook lover may not be able to decode words on her own, but I imagine she’s far more capable of understanding abstract and complex thoughts than the boy who’s taught phonics from day one. It needn’t be an either/or issue, but I worry the pendulum is swinging too far the other way so that the love of learning is what’s being stifled.

    The only reason inequities exist in education is because the responsibility of teaching has been taken from parents and given to the government. Incentivize home education and we will see far more kids who know how to read at an earlier age.

    Reply

Leave a Comment