Quote:
Originally Posted by Sil_liS
Where did you get the idea that the library had so many prizes to give?
And how exactly would this work? Do you get 100 children in the competition? No, that wouldn't work, because every kid that reads a book over the 10 lowers the incentive for the others to read 10 books. Do you get 50 children in the competition? No, that wouldn't work, because if 40 of them only read 10 books, the other 10 have to collectively read 600, and that would mean 60 books per child, and if the library could get 10 children in a competition to read 60 books each we wouldn't have this thread.
|
We're talking very hypotheticals here, and I did say there should be a minimum to qualify for a prize. And I have children, so I know what constitutes a "prize." Bookmarks, pencils, rulers, other things that can be bought in bulk at a low per-cost price. And I've seen many of these with corporate sponsorships, where a local business covers the cost of the prizes. I've seen "free" kid's meals, where the odds are really good the kid isn't going to eat by themselves, so the parents' meal costs offset some of the loss. My opinion of those businesses is generally positive, since they've invested a little in encouraging kids to do something that is good for them.
Obviously, a library would have to establish a goal that was neither too easy nor too hard for the kids to reach. And that's based on their individual patronage.
Or, alternatively, they could establish a time requirement rather than a books finished requirement, which would level the playing field with fast and slow readers.
There is no perfect idea that is going to work for every situation. But this library seemed to think that making the kids compete to see who would read the most would be a way to encourage reading and found it to have some unintended consequences. It's no surprise, since governments have a long history of doing things with the best of intentions and the worst of results.