"What Kids Are Reading, In School And Out"

[speakingtohe]

Originally Posted by Xanthe

In my elementary school, beginning with the third grade, IIRC, we used the SRA Reading Laboratory system for our reading lessons. I remember really enjoying that because we read at our own pace, the stories were never more than four pages so they weren't that long and they were on a variety of topics, and the comprehension tests were like playing. The segments were color-coded and when you finished all of the stories in one segment you moved on to another color. I always reached further in the color levels than my classmates because I read faster. I think that system encouraged my love for reading, because it introduced different genres to me and also introduced me to non-fiction.

I had the SRA reading course as well although I started it in grade 2.
I can still see in my mind the little folders all in their boxes and how nice it made me feel. Everything was complete in each folder. I was kind of devastated when I finished them all. I guess I thought they would go on forever.

Helen

[applesauce]

My twins are now 19. I did not raise them to be reading snobs. I raised them to read for enjoyment. My son is not much of a reader, my daughter is. She read all the YA stuff like twilight at 12/13, then the Hunger Games and other teen books. She now reads adult books.
I have to say the favourite book they read at 13 during school was The Boy In The Striped Pyjamas. Second favourite was Animal Farm, that was my favourite as a child as well.
Sorry but reading the classics is over rated.

applesauce

[Pismire]

I assume humans have considered their kids lacking in many a cultural field before reading (or culture, or even humans) have even been invented. It might even be the first primate tradition. Or maybe even the reptiles did it before us.

I can think of many great books in fantastic worlds or outer space that have done more for my mental development than, well, other fields possibly deemed more "worthy". And which reader started out with Dickens or Shakespeare?

Reading is a taste that develops, much like your taste-buds do. Call them read-buds, if you want. I do not judge people´s taste in either, but I am happy to see them eat at all

[teh603]

Originally Posted by Pismire

I assume humans have considered their kids lacking in many a cultural field before reading (or culture, or even humans) have even been invented. It might even be the first primate tradition. Or maybe even the reptiles did it before us.

Well, it goes back at least to Rome. There's a "famous" part of a Roman senator's oration where he complains about children.

[voracious71]

Originally Posted by NickyWithNook

My daughter did read them at 9 to 10, but yes they are pretty violent and not written for that age group regardless of what reading level the text is. Newspapers are also written at a pretty low reading level as I recall.

Anyway, my daughter has an interesting personality that involves a love of macabre, and so she is not put off by darkness and violence, but a lot of kids in the 9 to 11 age range would have trouble with the Hunger Games books.

I think people should read the books they like. Once upon a time, the classics were just popular books.

That's because there is too much coddling where there shouldn't be and lack of attention in areas where it's needed.

At 9 and 10, I started reading Stephen King novels and true crime books. I saw my fair share of R rated movies too..(cable TV) However, I didn't view my parents as peers, they were my parents. So, while they didn't censor my reading and tv/movie/music consumption all that much, they always knew who my friends were, where I was going, and what I was up to, especially my mom.

These days, parents get all twitchy about media, yet lax about other things.

Originally Posted by voracious71

At 9 and 10, I started reading Stephen King novels and true crime books. I saw my fair share of R rated movies too..(cable TV) However, I didn't view my parents as peers, they were my parents. So, while they didn't censor my reading and tv/movie/music consumption all that much, they always knew who my friends were, where I was going, and what I was up to, especially my mom.

Which is probably the right way to go about things. When you're dealing with minors, the important bit is how they respond to books, music, movies, etc. rather than the actual content itself. (I suppose that's true of adults too, but children have much less life experience to suggest what does or doesn't fit within acceptable social norms.)

Unfortunately, when it comes to education factories the ability to judge how a child is responding is much more difficult. That's not too surprising since teachers simply have far too many children to keep track of, so it's harder to judge how a child is relating to the work. Speaking as a teacher, it is easy to figure out for some children but very difficult to figure out for other children. Making life more fun: different kids will respond to different teachers in different ways, so you can't rely upon the research to tell you which is which and thus who to watch out for. Ultimately that means that teachers have to take a more conservative approach in judging what is and isn't appropriate reading. Sometimes we'll loosen the reigns for students who we know better, but only when we know them well enough.

(On the flip side, I taught teens math in another life. We had a "Drop Everything And Read" period during one math class. It was the easiest literacy course that I ever taught. I'd bring in a stack of readings ranging from newspapers to novels, then let the student choose. I'd also sit and read myself. No analysis. No grading. No judgement. It all worked so much better than a real language arts class.)

[applesauce]

Originally Posted by voracious71

That's because there is too much coddling where there shouldn't be and lack of attention in areas where it's needed.

At 9 and 10, I started reading Stephen King novels and true crime books. I saw my fair share of R rated movies too..(cable TV) However, I didn't view my parents as peers, they were my parents. So, while they didn't censor my reading and tv/movie/music consumption all that much, they always knew who my friends were, where I was going, and what I was up to, especially my mom.

These days, parents get all twitchy about media, yet lax about other things.

Well I am not twitchy. My kids have never been censored against anything either, My kids read and watched anything , but with us present. In fact at 11 my daughter wanted to grow up to be a producer so she could make more Nightmare on Elm Street movies. When other parents shocked asked me how on earth I let my children watch such things, my replay was always, I saw no problem with it infact it was teaching them what a bad idea it was for teens to sneak of and have sex as the boogie man always killed them first hehehe That tended to shut them up.
Even at 19 I always know exactly were my kids are. My kids had more rules on what they could do than anybody elses kids, I just did not censore them and ended up with amazing kids and not a single rebel.

applesauce

[speakingtohe]

Originally Posted by applesauce

Well I am not twitchy. My kids have never been censored against anything either, My kids read and watched anything , but with us present. In fact at 11 my daughter wanted to grow up to be a producer so she could make more Nightmare on Elm Street movies. When other parents shocked asked me how on earth I let my children watch such things, my replay was always, I saw no problem with it infact it was teaching them what a bad idea it was for teens to sneak of and have sex as the boogie man always killed them first hehehe That tended to shut them up.
Even at 19 I always know exactly were my kids are. My kids had more rules on what they could do than anybody elses kids, I just did not censore them and ended up with amazing kids and not a single rebel.

applesauce

Not trying to burst your bubble but would your children watch things they feel you disapprove of with you present? In real life the boogeyman rarely gets them first and I'll bet they know that at 19.

Helen

[Rbneader]

Well, when we stuff kids into rooms where they can't do anything active or really engaging, then teach them that 'real' reading means literary analysis, it's no wonder they don't like it. Plus, most US teachers aren't that good. Personal experience says that only about 3/4ths of them are really trying to teach, and of those who care most are young and in the process of getting burnt out.

Also, there's the twin whammies of US culture losing respect for education and many more broken homes. Teaching is hard enough with respectful and interested students. Trying to teach someone who's home is disrupted or broken is doubtless so much worse in so many ways.

[desertgrandma]

Originally Posted by Rbneader

Well, when we stuff kids into rooms where they can't do anything active or really engaging, then teach them that 'real' reading means literary analysis, it's no wonder they don't like it.

Ahem. I can only assume you haven't spent much, if any time, in a classroom volunteering with different teachers for any length of time.

I don't know about the schools you have exprience with, but the schools Ive volunteered in for the last 6 years do NOT "stuff kids into rooms where they can't do anything active or really engaging, then teach them that 'real' reading means literary analysys". In my daughters 2nd grade room, for instance, every table had a basket of books for kids to read when they finished classwork, or had free time. Books were avaalbe in different levels, up to grade 5. All bought by my daughter. The kids loved being able to sort thru many different genres, and levels. She wasn't unique in this aspect, every class I walked thru had books avaialbe to their students.....

Plus, most US teachers aren't that good. Personal experience says that only about 3/4ths of them are really trying to teach, and of those who care most are young and in the process of getting burnt out. Bull Hockey. My daughter has been teaching 14 years. SIL 12. BFF 16. Grandaughters kinder teacher 13. Teammates all have many many years under their belt. All outstanding, all dedicated and sacrifice personal time to make sure their students excel......even if they don't want to.

Also, there's the twin whammies of US culture losing respect for education and many more broken homes. Teaching is hard enough with respectful and interested students. Trying to teach someone who's home is disrupted or broken is doubtless so much worse in so many ways.

How do you figure losing respect for education? Throwing money at districts doesn't ensure a good education. Making families as responsible for their students success as the teachers would go a long way towards accomplishing that, but we all know that will never happen.
Just in case you might be wondering how I can be so adament about my statements? This last school year, I spent between 4-6 hrs per day, 4-5 days per week, in classrooms. Strictly voluneering, copying, filing, reading with indivuals, doing whatever needed to be done. Mostly in the second grade where my daughter taught, but whenever my granddaughters 5th grade teacher needed anything, or any teammates did, I was there. I saw first hand exactly what a dedicated teacher does.......not just my daughter, almost all. I won't say every teacher was outstanding, yes some are poor.......but they are in the minority, not the majority.

[jersysman]

Originally Posted by Joykins

I don't know if it's very useful to compare today's high school students to those of 100 years ago. In 1913 only about half the students went on to high school at all. My own grandfather left school at 8th grade.

I'm not comparing high school students here. I am comparing students period. The grade structure was completely different, but students still were taught reading, writing, and arithmetic.

[applesauce]

Originally Posted by speakingtohe

Not trying to burst your bubble but would your children watch things they feel you disapprove of with you present? In real life the boogeyman rarely gets them first and I'll bet they know that at 19.

Helen

It might be the case but there simply is nothing I disapprove of. I did not put on porn. But I did not raise them to think watching it in private as an adult was wrong either. My kids were just raised to talk about anything with us. If your kids are not doing that then you need to examine how you are raising them.

As for the boogie man comments I make, I am just rather sarcastic and enjoy watching so called perfect parents whose kids are sneaking around having sex and drinking behind their backs not letting their kids watch a M rated movie.

applesauce

[speakingtohe]

Originally Posted by applesauce

It might be the case but there simply is nothing I disapprove of. I did not put on porn. But I did not raise them to think watching it in private as an adult was wrong either. My kids were just raised to talk about anything with us. If your kids are not doing that then you need to examine how you are raising them.

As for the boogie man comments I make, I am just rather sarcastic and enjoy watching so called perfect parents whose kids are sneaking around having sex and drinking behind their backs not letting their kids watch a M rated movie.

applesauce

Well I hope things are as you believe them to be with your family, although I don't think it is nice to enjoy watching others mistakes and misfortunes. Still you have to get your enjoyment where you can get it I guess.

Helen

[wizwor]

I have never suffered more than when reading Moby Dick. Catcher in the Rye is not literature. Shakespeare is boring. Grendel was worse than Beowulf.

The only reason kids are not reading and analyzing Harry Potter and Stephen King is because the teachers would have to read and analyze Harry Potter and Stephen King.

It's much easier to regurgitate the same lesson plans year after year.

[Bilbo1967]

Originally Posted by wizwor

I have never suffered more than when reading Moby Dick. Catcher in the Rye is not literature. Shakespeare is boring. Grendel was worse than Beowulf.

The only reason kids are not reading and analyzing Harry Potter and Stephen King is because the teachers would have to read and analyze Harry Potter and Stephen King.

It's much easier to regurgitate the same lesson plans year after year.

Yep. The reason Shakespeare is still highly regarded is because teachers are lazy. I'm surprised nobody but you noticed.