Avid reader kid dominates reading contest, library director miffed

[kennyc]

Nah, the pedophile thread has got the record in this subforum

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by cortman

^ This puts it extremely well. In our current dialogue of political correctness excelling is not safe, it would seem.

Nope.
As the japanese proverb reportedly says:
"The nail that stands out, gets hammered."

The self-directed and self-motivated are derided as curve busters, obsessive, nerds, etc. Grandstanders making everybody else feel bad.

The politically correct approach is supposed to be cooperation and teamwork so that everybody shares the glory or avoids the embarrassment of failure. It is all about limiting risk, celebrating the mild, decrying the bold. Not about about pushing yourself to your limits, finding them, and then growing past them or working around them.

The evidence is piling up, though, that motivation and determination matters. That the willingness to work hard and stick with a task in the face of challenge and opposition is the best indicator of future success for children. More so than getting along with others and following the herd.

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/...n-ever/309402/

The above snippet is from the author of a recent, well-reviewed book on education, that highlights the effectiveness of challenging children, even *demanding* excellence, in developing a child's full potential.

http://www.amazon.com/The-Smartest-K...7094473&sr=1-1

http://www.economist.com/news/books-...-and-brightest

Ms Ripley credits Poland’s swift turnaround to Miroslaw Handke, the former minister of education. When he entered the post in 1997, Poland’s economy was growing but Poles seemed destined for the low-skilled jobs that other Europeans did not want. So he launched an epic programme of school reforms, with a new core curriculum and standardised tests. Yet his most effective change was also his wooliest: he expected the best work from all of his pupils. He decided to keep all Polish children in the same schools until they were 16, delaying the moment when some would have entered vocational tracks. Poland’s swift rise in PISA rankings is largely the result of the high scores of these supposedly non-academic children.

This is a lesson Ms Ripley sees throughout her tour of “the smart-kid countries”. Children succeed in classrooms where they are expected to succeed. Schools work best when they operate with a clarity of mission: as places to help students master complex academic material (not as sites dedicated to excellence in sport, she hastens to add). When teachers demand rigorous work, students often rise to the occasion, whereas tracking students at different cognitive levels tends to “diminish learning and boost inequality”. Low expectations are often duly rewarded.

Competition is by definition a challenge.
Those that decry competition are saying that teaching conformity and acquiescence is preferable to challenging kids to excel. Makes for more pliable, less contentious citizens, obviously. Easier to lead for the powers that be, whether library directors or politicians.

And, of course, if challenging kids to excel is deplorable, how much more deplorable the ones that challenge themselves. A bunch of trouble makers, really. Inventing things, disrupting businesses and tradition. Pushing to the boundaries and beyond.
Better to wish them away, right?

(Good luck with that, BTW.)

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by exaltedwombat

We're heading for Longest Thread Ever! All over a reading inititative that maybe wasn't organized QUITE the way we'd have done it :-)

It turns out it hinges on some deeply held (and contentious) core values.
A "Rorschach test" of a topic.
As I said above it is proving very educational to see the different positions.

[BearMountainBooks]

The problem is not the child. The problem is the library director came up with a program that didn't put enough thought into the program. If she wants to encourage children to read, she should have thought of a broader way to do it--rather than a simple, "read most wins." She shouldn't be suggesting the kid not compete. She needs to step up and create a program that rewards more children or encourages them to read via multiple channels.

I saw a couple of people discuss their library programs. The one at my library has several tiers for different age groups. There are prizes along the way (this many books gets to pick a prize from this box) and there are super champs and so on. There is even an adult competition.

The director needs to look at her own deficiencies rather than singling out (in a negative fashion) a child doing something positive.

[tubemonkey]

There'll always be "overachievers". As long as they don't set the standards by which everyone else is judged, I have no problem with it.

[Sregener]

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.

[bookmole]

Originally Posted by speakingtohe

Reminds me of a SciFi story I read, where the people with good vison were required to wear glasses that made their vision worse, and fast runners were hobbled and smart people had to wear headphones playing loud distracting sounds. The goal was an equal society.
Helen

think you are meaning this story by Kurt Vonnegut Jnr - [link deleted - MODERATOR]

[cortman]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

Nope.
As the japanese proverb reportedly says:
"The nail that stands out, gets hammered."

The self-directed and self-motivated are derided as curve busters, obsessive, nerds, etc. Grandstanders making everybody else feel bad.

The politically correct approach is supposed to be cooperation and teamwork so that everybody shares the glory or avoids the embarrassment of failure. It is all about limiting risk, celebrating the mild, decrying the bold. Not about about pushing yourself to your limits, finding them, and then growing past them or working around them.

The evidence is piling up, though, that motivation and determination matters. That the willingness to work hard and stick with a task in the face of challenge and opposition is the best indicator of future success for children. More so than getting along with others and following the herd.

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/...n-ever/309402/

The above snippet is from the author of a recent, well-reviewed book on education, that highlights the effectiveness of challenging children, even *demanding* excellence, in developing a child's full potential.

http://www.amazon.com/The-Smartest-K...7094473&sr=1-1

http://www.economist.com/news/books-...-and-brightest



Competition is by definition a challenge.
Those that decry competition are saying that teaching conformity and acquiescence is preferable to challenging kids to excel. Makes for more pliable, less contentious citizens, obviously. Easier to lead for the powers that be, whether library directors or politicians.

And, of course, if challenging kids to excel is deplorable, how much more deplorable the ones that challenge themselves. A bunch of trouble makers, really. Inventing things, disrupting businesses and tradition. Pushing to the boundaries and beyond.
Better to wish them away, right?

(Good luck with that, BTW.)

Eh? It appears that we agree on virtually every point- why the initial dismissal?

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by Jovvi

I think you are the one to make this a all or nothing situation! I never said none of the other kids were in it for the joy of reading, I said that by making it a competition that already have an allmost certain winner it could put of some kids that are slower reader and have not yet found that joy in books that this kid clearly already have found.

Okay, so in your opinion there is a group that has found the joy of reading, and a group that hasn't found the joy of reading, and read slower. I'm a little unclear on why a kid that hasn't found the joy of reading would enter a contest won by whoever reads most books, other than pressure from parents, but fine, let's go with that.

The obvious conclusion is that none of those in the joyless group would win the 'who reads most books in 6 weeks' contest, because as you pointed out, they read slower. So what difference would it make if the winner is Tyler, or his brother, or whoever came in third if everyone knows for sure that the slow readers have no chance of winning?

[exaltedwombat]

Originally Posted by kennyc

Nah, the pedophile thread has got the record in this subforum

Were we for them or against them? Any noticable geographic split?

[crich70]

Originally Posted by kennyc

Nah, the pedophile thread has got the record in this subforum

I remember that thread. It still boggles the mind that he was ever allowed to actually publish the book in question in the 1st place.

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by Sregener

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.

This year, according to the article, the top prize was a t-shirt. Since they are motivating the children with '10 books and you receive an invitation to the party at the end of the program' it is possible that the sponsorship money is used for that party.

[BearMountainBooks]

Our library has MULTIPLE sponsors. The local restaurants give a coupon for sodas, meals, etc. Dollar donations are turned into t-shirt prizes. Other sponsors give pencils, pens and that sort of thing (usually with their logo on there). Our director works hard every year to get prizes.

[Jovvi]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

Okay, so in your opinion there is a group that has found the joy of reading, and a group that hasn't found the joy of reading, and read slower. I'm a little unclear on why a kid that hasn't found the joy of reading would enter a contest won by whoever reads most books, other than pressure from parents, but fine, let's go with that.

The obvious conclusion is that none of those in the joyless group would win the 'who reads most books in 6 weeks' contest, because as you pointed out, they read slower. So what difference would it make if the winner is Tyler, or his brother, or whoever came in third if everyone knows for sure that the slow readers have no chance of winning?

Well, in the article the call it "summer reading club", don´t they? Or I may be wrong and its the "Summer reading competition". If so, your absolutly right. However, if it´s a club it seems to me it´s more about participation. Still obviously the rules are making it a competition. I think that is stupid, you seem to think that´s a good idea. I guess we just have to agree to disagree

[Katsunami]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

The evidence is piling up, though, that motivation and determination matters. That the willingness to work hard and stick with a task in the face of challenge and opposition is the best indicator of future success for children. More so than getting along with others and following the herd.

Obviously. I've often heard from people such as team leaders or managers:

"*I* (the all-knowing manager) think you are not capable to do this."

Uh. What? Do you have any proof of that? I've been tested by Mensa to belong to (at least) the upper 5% of most intelligent people on this planet. Apparantly, I'm not stupid. I've completed normal university education, despite former teachers in primary and secondary education telling my parents to send me to a "special" school because of my poor eyesight. (They thought that it would prevent me from keeping up.) I still did make it. Apparantly, I'm already capable of doing things the "experts" said I shouldn't be able to.

So. Who are you to tell me that I can't do something? Get lost.

Given time, relevant materials to study and tools to work with, combined with my own determination and motivation, I can do anything and become anything.

Granted, I can't apply for a position of brain surgeon right now. I can't do that. Heck, I couldn't even apply for a position of car mechanic. I don't have the skills or the knowledge. But, if I wanted to become a car mechanic or a brain surgeon, I'm quite sure I could do it.

The only prohibition for many (intelligent) people to not be able to do things is lack of knowledge, and often, lack of money or time to acquire it.

Even people with only average intelligence can often do much more than they, or others, think they are capable of, *if* they have the motivation to work at it. They'll probably need to work harder or practice more than the more intelligent people, but that doesn't take away the fact they can do stuff, if given the chance.