[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by Jovvi

Ok, so I used the wrong word "really gifted", even if I think it is a gift to be able to read fast and enjoy it. I´m a fast reader myself, but not everybody is, just like some people are able to run very fast and some just don´t. It´s as much an achievment for the slow reader that struggle but don´t give up, as for the fast reader that keep on reading. Boyh should get a reward!

I suppose this 9 year old loves to read and puts all his free time to it (I did as a kid) and he should get praised and maybe get a special reward ( a win?) but some kids just can´t read 10 books a day, even if they too put a lot of effort in and they should get praise too, for trying.

It's 10 books per week, not per day. BIG difference.

Originally Posted by Katsunami

This way, everybody who finishes one book wins something, and there's incentive to read more.

edit: The prizes can be quite small. The smallest can be a bag of candy from a local store. Every kid who finishes one or two books comes away with a bag of candy at least. To win something bigger, you'll need to finish 6 books, which requires the sustained effort of reading at least 1 book a week. The prize could be a ticket to go see a movie in the theatre.

The children that competed so far didn't come for the top prize of the water bottle.

Originally Posted by mycurlylocks

Competitions are nothing but contests by peer pressure. He wins, the other children dislike him. Not an example the libraries or teachers should set. Peer pressure in the schools usually causes some unstable young adults. You'd think the libraries would realize this too.

Every child that reads, deserves a prize. They don't have to make them large prizes, kids that age are happy with almost anything. Or a pizza party for all the contestants.

People who don't like competing shouldn't compete. Every child that reads gets the prize of learning something new. Parents can motivate them at home with prizes. If they need to get motivated by competitions, then they get motivated by being better (than others, than their past selves, than a goal that they set for themselves). And essentially banning the best reader from a reading competition for no other reason other than being the best makes no sense.

Originally Posted by glnnjnsn

According to the article, they do have a party at the end for everyone who reads more than 10 books. And the prizes for reading the most weren't exactly the stuff of legend either: water bottle, atlas, etc.

In fact, there seemed to be some ambiguity as to what their summer program was: the aide seemed to emphasize the competition aspect, while the librarian stressed that it was supposed to be a reading club.

From the article I get the feeling that the competition aspect had more to do with themes. Lita Casey, an aide at the library, gave an example:

As a testament to Tyler’s love of reading, Casey said that a few years ago, the summer theme centered on regions of the United States. Kids were supposed to read a book on each section of the country. A few children dropped out of the program because they didn’t like the subject matter, Casey said, but Tyler read at least one book on each of the 50 states.

What put children off the competition was the topic. I'm not sure if I would find 63 books that would interest me on any given topic. On the topics that I actually like, sure, hundreds, thousands, more than I could possibly read in a lifetime. But any topic? I doubt it.

Originally Posted by QuantumIguana

I think they should drop the contest. The goal is to encourage reading, but this doesn't do it. This kid doesn't need any encouragement. It's like gym class focusing on the best athletes, and leaving those most in need of physical education out in the cold. A football game is not about getting kids to be more physically fit, but gym class is, and I see the goal of such programs to be more like a gym class than a football game.

Focusing on the number of books encourages reading simpler, shorter books and encourages rushing through books. I'm not saying this kid is doing either of these, but the incentive is there.

Sure, because what encourages interest in sports is banning the best players, and the knowledge that if you do better than everyone else you will be the next one to be banned.

Originally Posted by QuantumIguana

Competition is good, but it depends on your mission. If your mission is to see who the fastest reader or runner is, then a competition makes sense, because you're focus is on the fastest. But if your mission is to get people to read more or to get physically fit, then competition may not be the best way to fulfill that mission. Such competitions can discourage those who need it most. It's the difference between a gym class and an athletic competition. We expect an athletic competition to focus on the best, but if a gym class focuses on the best, it can be counterproductive, in that it discourages those who most need physical fitness training.

But if competition is to be used, perhaps there could be tiers of competition. Even if the rules require the books to be at your grade level, it encourages people to read the shortest and easiest books available at that level. You could have tiers of competition with one tier being books at your grade level, another for books higher than grade level, and another tier for books at an even higher level.

If your mission is to see who the fastest reader or runner is, then a competition where this is timed makes sense, because you're focus is on the fastest. This wasn't the case. The boy's brother, second place, read 40 books in 6 weeks. That is just less than a book per day. The competition isn't about reading fast, it's about finding enough books that interest you on a given topic.