Teachers College Reading Units of Study

At first glance, Teachers Pay Teachers, a monetized lesson plan site, appears to be a win-win offering. There are lesson plans and educational materials marketed by vendors (teachers) who make a small profit on the sale.

The first win is for the teachers selling the plans. Many teachers could use extra income from selling their lesson plans on monetized sites. Perhaps that extra income may even be put back into the classroom in the form of resources for students.

The other win might be in the time “saved.” With a few clicks, a hit on the Paypal or credit card, there can be a complete set of prepared materials delivered to a teacher’s inbox.

From this perspective, a monetized lesson plan site could be compared to a fast food restaurant, a solution for teachers who did not have the time to prepare lessons. And just as there are different kinds of fast food restaurants, there are menus of grade level prepared lessons in multiple content areas that can be fed to students at minimal cost.

These purchases offer immediate gratification. A solution with little to no effort. No mess to clean up. Problem solved. ..(and fries are delicious!)

But too much fast food is bad for you. That is a fact.
Fast foods are high in calories, fat, salt, and sugar. Fast food is linked to health risks (Type 2 diabetes, heart disease). Fast food is associated with weight gain and obesity.

Curricula Weight Gain

A similar weight gain is happening in classrooms.

If a teacher feels there is not enough time to prepare lessons or materials, the option of a complete take-out lesson can be appealing…and that’s how these materials are marketed:

“…requires NO PREP!”
“A lot of time and effort went into this product!”
“Exhausted by prep?”
“Tired of spending nights and weekends reinventing the curriculum wheel?”

Creating good lessons takes time, and the promise of reduced planning time is enticing. Emergencies happen. Substitute teachers need direction. The computer lab is not available. For realistic reasons, an occasional stop into the lesson take-out market is tempting. Such a purchase can have a mental health side effect in reducing teacher stress.

But for those school districts that already provide grade-level curricula or a scripted program to teachers, those materials purchased on monetized websites have the potential to increase the full helpings in a curriculum by adding more…bell-ringers, task cards, handouts, packets and worksheets, worksheets, worksheets. Each stop in the lesson take-out lane can contribute to a glut of activities.

Ironically, the grade level curriculum is not the only thing getting fat from these extra helpings. Adding materials increases a teacher’s workload: finding, downloading, copying, preparing, and distributing. That pile of handouts will result in a pile of student work to correct and grade. Even when teachers use these activities as a timesaver, they might require more time to correct.

Then there are the other questions: Should any purchased material carry the same weight in assessment as the materials that a school district provides in a curriculum? Are these materials providing valuable data on student performance that can inform instruction? Are materials differentiated for student ability? OR are they busy work, empty calories collecting in unit binders?

Sadly, for under-resourced schools with few materials, the stuff on a monetized website might be the curriculum.

“Why remake the wheel?”

Teachers have always shared materials. But the reality is that the person doing the lesson planning is the person who understands how the lesson will work in the classroom in meeting the needs of the students. One purchased lesson plan may not fit all student needs.

In addition, there is also no oversight or quality control of the materials online. While a lesson plan shared with the teacher next door may carry credibility, the user reviews on a website from buyers can be suspect. There is no quality control or regulation on the seller’s platform.

Plagiarism and Knock-offs

Regulation might stop the level of plagiarism on monetized websites that border on copyright infringement. For example, the TPT platform claims:

“Teachers Pay Teachers is an online marketplace where teachers buy and sell original educational materials.”

Some of what is for sale, however, is not original.

For example, there are links to teachers offering materials that are “based” on the materials in the reading or writing kits from Heinemann’s Units of Study. These kits were developed by Lucy Calkins and other educators. Heinemann’s grade level workbooks and unit sessions (not lessons) explain the purpose of reading and writing workshops in narrative form. Unit guides in each kit detail the assessments, rubrics, and learning progressions. Teachers who read the materials and use the resources provided in the kit should have little need for additional worksheets, slides, or packets.

But there are vendors who offer reduced versions of this material. According to one vendor, “because reading through the narrative from Lucy Calkins in each session can be time-consuming” or from another vendor “you know it can be difficult to grasp everything to teach from the manual.” Given the popularity of academic shortcuts such as Sparknotes, Cliffnotes, or Schmoop, perhaps this kind of offering was inevitable. Nevermind that reading the narrative from the books in the Heinemann kits are what best prepares the teacher to implement the sessions, even if it is hard to grasp.

Then there is the language used to market for these products. One such promotional tag line: “Will have you teaching the Lucy Calkins Curriculum with sniper precision and silky smoothness.” Sniper precision? Silky smoothness? One wonders if vendors understand that the materials are used to improve reading and writing skills, not for something more ominous.

Finally, there are expanded versions of the Units of Study with supplemental materials. Some vendors promote “entire years worth of powerpoint slides” and “extra grammar lessons for writing workshop” neither of which were included by the original designers, probably for a reason. Expansion kits offer extra vocabulary cards, journal prompts, interactive notebooks, and, yes, more worksheets.

The sheer number of these Units of Study knock-offs (2,677 results under a “Lucy Calkin” search on TPT) represent thousands of links to unvetted materials. As a result, school districts that have approved and adopted the Lucy Calkins Units of Study might now have a modified “lite version” or the “fattened version” of the original kits taught in their classrooms.

Heinemann takes notice

Most recently (12/10/18), Heinemann has taken notice. Duplicating their published materials is plagiarism, a practice that should be shunned by any academic enterprise. There is a statement on the publisher’s blog:

“Lifting text, illustrations, and/or charts directly from a published author’s work can be considered intellectual property infringement, as can some adaptations….Although the seller simply intends to offer fellow teachers something ready-made to save time, the material is sometimes downloaded and used by teachers who do not have the original material and will therefore lose sight of the related purpose, intention, and research basis.”

“This product may not be distributed or displayed digitally for public view. Failure to comply is a copyright infringement and a violation of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA).”

Unfortunately, Heinemann’s Units of Study are not the only copyrighted materials that have been reproduced or repackaged for resale. Searches for other licensed literacy programs on the TPT website yield the following:

Wordly Wise (4,018 results)
Words Their Way ( 172,010 results)
Sadlier Vocabulary (489 results)
Handwriting Without Tears (872 results)
Fundations (2,669 results)
Patterns of Power (2,672 results )

There may be some original material in those numbers, but there are many knock-offs. Some of these copied materials are as expensive as the licensed originals!

The lesson plan marketplaces were created to support a teacher exchange, putting original ideas out for a small fee. There are vendors who are abiding by this exchange. Many sellers offer creative materials that can enhance a station, center, or activity; bulletin boards have never looked better! Some of these items for sale might spark new ideas that can help novice and veteran teachers alike. But there are also pages and pages of mediocre material that can pack on the pounds and clog the arteries of curricula and ultimately block the delivery of the vetted materials.

Like the tempting commercials of sizzling hamburgers, cheesy stuffed burritos, or frosty mugs of bubbling colas that can be had in minutes, the monetized lesson plan site offers the consumer the promise of a quick, easy serving, especially when the time is limited. But a steady diet of fast food calories is not healthy for the body or for the unit binder. Before investing, teachers should decide if these lessons and materials are just packing on the pounds of busy work. Will these timesavers demand additional attention or correcting? Do they serve the needs of the students?

While there are resources on monetized websites that may make lesson planning easier, there is no guarantee that these resources make lessons better. And while fries may be delicious, if they are consumed regularly over time, they are a health risk.

In a previous post, I questioned a question:

“How did [the character] change? What caused this change?”

This question is part of an assessment in Teacher College Reading Units of Study in Grade 3. But many of the elementary texts that students can read independently at that grade level do not contain a character change at all. Why ask this question as an assessment if the ELA Common Core State Standards do not address character change until grade 6?

By definition, change denotes a making or becoming distinctly different and implies a radical transmutation of character. In literary terms, those characters that do change are called dynamic characters.

A dynamic character undergoes substantial internal changes as a result of one or more plot developments. The dynamic character’s change can be extreme or subtle, as long as his or her development is important to the book’s plot or themes.

Of course, the language in this literary definition of a dynamic character is too high for elementary students K-3. There are also few characters that students encounter in reading grade level texts with “substantial” internal changes, subtle or otherwise.

But what many elementary texts, especially picture books, do show are characters that learn. The novelist Anthony Burgess (A Clockwork Orange) has commented on creating characters that “increase in wisdom”:

“There is, in fact, not much point in writing a novel unless you can show the possibility of moral transformation, or an increase in wisdom, operating in your chief character or characters.”

Readers of his novel A Clockwork Orange would credit Burgess as a master in crafting a character (Alex) who undergoes a moral transformation. But his suggestion that a character can have “an increase in wisdom” is a good explanation of what younger students should look for in the elementary texts they can read.

For example, there is an increase in wisdom seen in Alexander in Alexander and the Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad Day who concludes that there are just bad days…even in Australia. Many picture books serve as examples where the chief character experiences an increase in wisdom:

CJ in Last Stop on Market Street learns to appreciate what is beautiful;
Jabari in Jabari Jumps learns how to be brave and take a risk;
Gus in Sam and the Firefly learns self-control;
Stellaluna, the African bat learns how to be part of different families;
The child (Patricia Pollacco) learns to be brave in a storm in Thundercake;
Chrysanthemum learns to take pride in her name.

In some stories, this increase in wisdom is made obvious by a shift in a character’s feelings or opinion. This may seem to be a matter of semantics, whether a change in feelings or opinion is the same as an increase in wisdom. For example, the character “Sam-I- am” character reverses his deeply held opinion after (finally) tasting Green Eggs and Ham. But is he wiser? One could argue that his change in opinion about a food choice is just a change in opinion, not an internal change in his character. (Of course, the same could be said for Jane Austen’s Elizabeth Bennett in Pride and Prejudice. Her character does not change, but her opinion of Mr. Darcy is far more favorable after she visits Pemberley!)

A direct question about what lesson was learned will also prevent students from confusing a physical change in a character with a character change. For example, when Camilla’s love of lima beans in A Bad Case of Stripes is revealed as the cause of her colorful outward appearance, she (eventually) gains the wisdom to care less about what others think. In another physical change, the donkey Sylvester’s transformation into a rock in Sylvester and the Magic Pebble could be read as a commentary on fate or chance because, as a rock or not, he remains Sylvester who loves his family. Students should understand that the physical changes that some characters undergo are not character changes.

There are some examples at the elementary level where the moral transformation is inferred, simplified, without “substantial internal” deliberations. The Three Robbers by Tomi Ungerer, convert from being dangerous highwaymen to generous stepfathers when the little girl Tiffany asks what will they do with their ill-gotten gains. On one page, they are bad, and on the next page, they are good. The radical change in their thinking is inferred, and the evidence of their moral transformation is in their actions, adopting unwanted children.

As students move from picture books, chapter books, and series books, they will encounter other examples of moral transformation of a character with the kind of evidence that shows “substantial internal” deliberation that Burgess referenced. Jerry Spinelli’s Crash and Louise Fitzhugh’s Harriet the Spy each feature a protagonist who undergoes a moral change in character.

But it also should also be noted that in the literary canon, not every novel features characters who undergo moral transformative change. Which characters really experience this kind of change in To Kill a Mockingbird? Or Catcher in the Rye?

Ultimately, asking students “How did [the character] change? What caused this change?” in the elementary grades without laying the literary groundwork can muddy their understanding when they tackle more complex texts. Asking students a question about an increase in wisdom or “what the character learns” instead can be a better way to begin to build their understanding of what character change is, or isn’t, in the texts they can read independently not only in Grades K-3 but in Grade 4 and Grade 5 as well. Students should be encouraged to look for a shift in a character’s feelings or opinion as evidence for an increase in wisdom. They can learn to make inferences about a character’s increase in wisdom, such as what Duncan learns about creativity in The Day the Crayons Quit.

Then, by Grade 6, they will be prepared to respond to an assessment question that is based on the CCSS standard “…describe how a particular story’s or drama’s plot unfolds in a series of episodes as well as how the characters respond or change as the plot moves toward a resolution. (RL.6.3)”

There is, however, a bonus to discussing the shifts in a character’s feelings with K-3 elementary texts that is not always available in the upper grades. Students in elementary grades can use the illustrations in a text as evidence to support information on the differences a character may feel. And what better evidence is there for showing all the different shifts in a character’s feelings than through the expressive illustrations of Mo Willems’ Pigeon?

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

Is there evidence for a change in the Pigeon’s feelings? Certainly. But, an increase in Pigeon’s wisdom? Well, maybe.

Used Books in Class

Archives For Teachers College Reading Units of Study