Avid reader kid dominates reading contest, library director miffed

[Jovvi]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

This goes beyond not being good for the stated purpose. This makes no sense for the stated purpose.

Sure there is the fact that the librarian has no evidence that removing the incentive to read as many books as possible will make kids read more, but the timing for changing the rules is all wrong. Unless she just planed on publicly embarrassing the kid. I mean it was made clear that everybody was aware of who reads the most books. By the rules of the club, the kid who reads the most books would get the acknowledgment with a prize that on occasion was a certificate of acknowledgment. She planned on changing the rules before the announcement of the winner explaining how this overachieving kid was taking the joy out of participating for everyone else.

Getting a public lecture instead of the prize that you worked for seems pretty demoralizing, so either the librarian hates overachievers on principle, or is personally set against this one.


Hey, hold on there, do you mind moving that goal post back? Nobody talked about children that hate reading being in the club. In case you missed it, I don't even agree with your opinion that there are children in the club who haven't found the joy of reading.


The mom didn't call being upset that her son would possible not win anymore. She called because she thought that her son's efforts were about to be acknowledged for the fifth time. The librarian hadn't changed the rules at this point. She got upset that she can't change them now.


All kids that go to school read. The goal is to get them to read more by introducing them to new topics, and by getting them focused on reading for the duration of 6 weeks. It's not like they don't know this kid from school or from the library, and they don't know that he reads more than them even without a book club or competition in sight.

I don´t agree with you, you don´t agree with me, in fact to me it seems you misinterpret everything I try to say. Fine, you can feel whatever you want but you can´t change my mind.

[BearMountainBooks]

Originally Posted by Andrew H.

This.

This is not some Harrison Bergeron-esque morality play where the librarian is objecting because someone is better than the other kids and everyone should be equal. She's objecting because the program is not helping the rest of the kids read. This comes from using a winner-takes-all approach to encourage everyone to read, which is a stupid approach when you want *everyone* to read.

We have grades in schools, but it's not like only the valedictorian is allowed to graduate.

The problem is with HER program NOT the kid. IF she doesn't like him winning all the time and it isn't working to encourage other kids to read, you change the program--NOT THE KID. So let's say you throw him out. Well, guess what. The kid next in line could win 5 years in a row. Rather than sit down and realize the deficiency is HER PROGRAM, she pointed fingers at the kid. Ridiculous! Your idea for getting more kids to read failed. CHANGE THE IDEA. Taking one kid out of the competition, still leaves it a very weak competition.

[Freeshadow]

@ fjtorres
Damn I can't give you Karma again...

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by Freeshadow

@ fjtorres
Damn I can't give you Karma again...

(blush)
Not required.
The canadian piece is so well-written...and so heart rending.
That bright minds could be treated that way in the name of conformity...

[BearMountainBooks]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

(blush)
Not required.
The canadian piece is so well-written...and so heart rending.
That bright minds could be treated that way in the name of conformity...

Or any other name.

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by Jovvi

I don´t agree with you, you don´t agree with me, in fact to me it seems you misinterpret everything I try to say. Fine, you can feel whatever you want but you can´t change my mind.

What exactly am I misinterpreting?
You said:

Originally Posted by Jovvi

(because the mom called them being upset that her son would possible not win anymore)

The article said:

Katie notified a Post-Star reporter about her son being a longtime winner.

and

Gandron further told the reporter she planned to change the rules of the contest so that instead of giving prizes to the children who read the most books, she would draw names out of a hat and declare winners that way. She said she can’t now because Katie has come forward to the newspaper.

The librarian saying that she planned to change the rules but couldn't now clearly means that she hadn't changed the rules at the times when she was contacted by the media, so the mom couldn't have known that the librarian wanted to change the rules, so she couldn't have been upset.


You talk about this being about getting more kids to read. I pointed out that they read and this is about getting them to read more. How did I misinterpret "[...]if the goal is to get more kids to read[...]"

[voracious71]

Originally Posted by Lemurion

See, here's where I don't get it.

This boy isn't coming across as "really gifted." He just reads more than the other kids because he wants to and is willing to put in the time. I know I regularly read 2-3 books a day when I was that age, so it's not like he's putting up insurmountable numbers.

I think the competition is fine.

Although, what is he reading( age appropriate or preschool books, because they're short) and is he really reading them? That's why I don't think these kind of contests are a big deal. Sometimes,they focus more on quantity vs quality. Maybe they have some manner of checking if they read the books.

I guess it's good that kids are reading- maybe if they picked several winners or had categories( most challenging book for age group? ) it would keep everyone happy. Like I said, I've never been impressed by these things. I don't even keep track of how many books I read in a year. I could read hundreds, if I read novellas, or those Harlequin romance books.

[QuantumIguana]

Originally Posted by Sregener

Here's another idea that works well in a "competition": set a goal for the entire library. "Let's see if we can have 1,000 books read this summer. If we hit the goal, then everyone who contributes at least 10 books will get prize X." That turns the 63-book reader into the team star, while encouraging everyone else to read, too. You can give special acknowledgement (not prizes) to the "top readers" at the end, but everyone who reads 10 books wins. Thus, the encouragement is "everyone do your part", not "everyone try to beat the superstar."

But expecting a kid who is a slow reader to want to read more in the hopes they'll beat a fast reader isn't going to work, no matter what. And most kids like to win, and don't like to lose, so they'll choose not to do things they don't think they can win.

I like this idea. It gives everyone an incentive to participate. Everyone is contributing whether they read many books or just a few.

[voracious71]

Ha, I just read that article that talks about the teacher who thinks that the kid is "decoding" the books and not understanding them.. I remember my days in school. I had books taken from me too or was told a book was "too hard" for me.

Originally Posted by Sregener

Oh, dear. You need to read "Amusing Ourselves to Death" by Neil Postman, or "The Read Aloud Handbook" by Jim Trelease. Both make the point that when it comes to quality of content, television lags far behind books. Saying that reading is about consumption and is thus no different from television watching is like saying that eating is about consumption and that fruits & vegetables are no different from candy bars.

Point taken on the quality of the information. Even a diet of quality documentaries will leave you lacking because the density of information is far lower than that found in books.

Yet I think people are still missing my point: reading is, at best, about self-improvement. That isn't much different from eating fruits and veggies instead of candy. You eat those foods because you want to be healthier, and not because it improves the world. You may use that healthier body to help other people, but it does not automatically happen. Reading is exactly the same, it does not do anything to improve the world by itself. You may use that healthier mind to help other people, but it doesn't automatically happen.

That said, books aren't hugely different from television. People can choose to read garbage books, just like they can choose to watch garbage TV. People can choose to read quality books, just like they can choose to watch quality TV. I find that there are more quality books out there, but that has more to do with demographics. I also find that information density is better in books, likely because reading speeds are higher than verbal communications, but there are things you can demonstrate on TV that you can't demonstrate effectively in books.

So yes, I stand by that comparison.

[Jovvi]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

What exactly am I misinterpreting?
You said:


The article said:

and


The librarian saying that she planned to change the rules but couldn't now clearly means that she hadn't changed the rules at the times when she was contacted by the media, so the mom couldn't have known that the librarian wanted to change the rules, so she couldn't have been upset.


You talk about this being about getting more kids to read. I pointed out that they read and this is about getting them to read more. How did I misinterpret "[...]if the goal is to get more kids to read[...]"

I´m getting tired of this. Partly because english is not my language and even if I understand it really well in writing and know in my head exactly what I mean it is more difficult for me to argue in english becase I have to stop and think of what word to use and still I know I spell them wrong and it bothers me because I see the words are wrong and still can´t get them right.

So I try again...
1. I don´t trust media to tell the absolut and full truth. Even if the librarian said exactly the words in the article we don´t know if she said other things or in what context she said them. The paper chose what would make a good story.

2. The same is true for the mother, why did she call the paper? She says to tell them her son had won the contest for the fifth time, but it could be because she had heard that the library wanted to change the rules (which is wrong since rules should not change during an event/contest whatever). Naturally she is upset that this is unfair to her kid.

3. As someone else here said, most of us agree the librarian did wrong. I do too, but I try to read between the lines and sort of get what she seems to want, to encourage more kids to read. I think she made a mistake by making it a competition in the first place because while the kids that like to read, are fast readers and like to compete will be encouraged, other kids that already know (or feel) that they are not as good readers, or as fast and can only imagine themselves as losing this competition will not want to participate. Some people may want to compete anyway (but I think few kids will) and some that are "just belove" may be encouraged to strive harder. Those kids are not the problem, the ones that give up beforehand are... To you they are not a problem because you don´t think they participate anyway. You could very well be right, my point however is how can we get those kids to participate to? I argue against competition as a way to make those kids learn to love reading. I talk about "joy of books" becaus that is what I wish those kids to feel. I think Tyler in the article already love readin, he has already discovered the joy of books and with him it´s the adults (parent, librarian, teacher) job to nurture that joy.

The librarian was really wrong in putting him down, and of cause this year he won this contest fairly since she made it a contest. I don´t believe if she changes the rules for next year so it´s not a contest or have a rule that former "champions" can´t participate again or whatever, will make him stop reading. Do you? If he can´t "win" next year will he put all books down never to read again? I don´t think he will, I do feel kids that are made to feel a failure by losing in competition after competition might. So I think the library should have a reading club in which everyone wins by participating (even if it´s just a pen, a bookmark, a diploma or an invitation to a "bookparty").

Originally Posted by fjtorres

She didn't object that the kid won twice or even four times.
It was the *fifth* win that offended her.
That was one too many for her sensibilities.
Not unlike the people who found J.K. Rowling a perfectly fine writer when her books had "only" sold a few million copies but decided she was a talentless hack once she became a billionaire.

There is a huge difference between reading and writing.

How do you know how the librarian responded the other four times? I can easily imagine something like this happening: the first time was great because they identified this wonderful reader. The second time was equally great because the reader was still at it. The third time was, uh good but how do we get other kids involved. The fourth time was, this is getting to be a problem. Maybe the kid will be a good sport and bow out of the competition next year so that other kids have a chance. The fifth time: snap and inappropriate response.

J.K. Rowling is a totally different situation. I only read the first three or four Harry Potter books, so I can't say whether her writing declined later on or if people considered her a hack because of her success. It is a genuine concern since some people regard anything with mass appeal as being low quality, which isn't necessarily the case. I know that adults frequently become concerned when kids are too heavily invested in reading a particular series, at the expense of reading books in general. Teachers in particular prefer diversity and quality over quantity. Unfortunately, that concern for the kids may have spilled over, inappropriately, to reflect poorly upon Rowling.

That said, an author and a reader differ in vital ways. An author creates something that has an impact upon the lives of other people. The richer they become, the more successful they were at it. (We can only hope that the impact they had on people's lives in the process was positive.) But readers just consume. They don't make a contribution to others unless they choose to do something with what they learned while reading. Even then, quantity is no substitute for quality. Even then, quantities of quality reading is no substitute for those who act upon what they read.

A copious reader may be a high achiever. Then again, they may not be. Simply put, I'd rather call a person an achiever based upon what they created rather than how much they consumed.

[fjtorres]

Creativity is great. Two thumbs up for anybody willing and able to bring something new to the world.

But creativity is not the only form of achievement worth being proud of.
Discovery, exploration, mastering a skill, assisting others in need...
Living a good life in these trying times, improving *yourself* intellectually or economically...

Setting a goal and meeting it is a good enough definition of achievement for me. And I'll happily applaude any kid who has willingly read one book about each of the 50 states in the union.

(But, then, at that age I would read each year's new World Almanack, cover to cover, as soon as it hit the street.)

Edit: Attitudes toward achievement is something I've been observing for years now, ever since reading Malcom Gladwell's OUTLIERS. There is a big rift between how different people and entire societies view and treat high achievers. I expect even bigger consequences down the road.
(shrug)

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by Jovvi

I´m getting tired of this. Partly because english is not my language and even if I understand it really well in writing and know in my head exactly what I mean it is more difficult for me to argue in english becase I have to stop and think of what word to use and still I know I spell them wrong and it bothers me because I see the words are wrong and still can´t get them right.

So I try again...
1. I don´t trust media to tell the absolut and full truth. Even if the librarian said exactly the words in the article we don´t know if she said other things or in what context she said them. The paper chose what would make a good story.

2. The same is true for the mother, why did she call the paper? She says to tell them her son had won the contest for the fifth time, but it could be because she had heard that the library wanted to change the rules (which is wrong since rules should not change during an event/contest whatever). Naturally she is upset that this is unfair to her kid.

You could use Google, or the tags on the website the initial story was on to see the follow up stories.

On Tuesday night, WTEN-TV in Albany also did a story on the ongoing controversy.

In that story, Channel 10 contacted Gandron. She told the station that she was “misquoted” and that her words were “taken out of context.

“Because those quotes from Ms. Gandron were so outrageous, we reviewed that story very carefully before publication,” said Post-Star Editor Ken Tingley. “Our reporter tape-recorded the interview and transcribed the tape before writing the story. Ms. Gandron was not misquoted and her words were not taken out of context. We stand by the story as factual and accurate.”

Ms. Gandron did not contact The Post-Star to report she was misquoted.

They also received a reply from the President of Hudson Falls Free Library Board of Trustees, in which he calls the comments "unfortunate".

Originally Posted by Jovvi

3. As someone else here said, most of us agree the librarian did wrong. I do too, but I try to read between the lines and sort of get what she seems to want, to encourage more kids to read. I think she made a mistake by making it a competition in the first place because while the kids that like to read, are fast readers and like to compete will be encouraged, other kids that already know (or feel) that they are not as good readers, or as fast and can only imagine themselves as losing this competition will not want to participate. Some people may want to compete anyway (but I think few kids will) and some that are "just belove" may be encouraged to strive harder. Those kids are not the problem, the ones that give up beforehand are... To you they are not a problem because you don´t think they participate anyway. You could very well be right, my point however is how can we get those kids to participate to? I argue against competition as a way to make those kids learn to love reading. I talk about "joy of books" becaus that is what I wish those kids to feel. I think Tyler in the article already love readin, he has already discovered the joy of books and with him it´s the adults (parent, librarian, teacher) job to nurture that joy.

The librarian was really wrong in putting him down, and of cause this year he won this contest fairly since she made it a contest. I don´t believe if she changes the rules for next year so it´s not a contest or have a rule that former "champions" can´t participate again or whatever, will make him stop reading. Do you? If he can´t "win" next year will he put all books down never to read again? I don´t think he will, I do feel kids that are made to feel a failure by losing in competition after competition might. So I think the library should have a reading club in which everyone wins by participating (even if it´s just a pen, a bookmark, a diploma or an invitation to a "bookparty").

Again, Google it and read the lines instead of reading between the lines. But start with the article:

Prizes were also awarded for the top reader in the kindergarten division, best rock people creations and best coloring entries.

This wasn't just the party invitations and the title of having read the most books, there were other prizes as well.

Then search the club/competition: http://hudsonfalls.sals.edu/?p=647

36 area children in grades K – 6 (you must have completed Kindergarten)

joined between June 24 – August 3 of those 36, 30 met (and many surpassed) the 10-book requirement.

This is interesting because it means that there could have been for example children that joined in the last week and read 10 books in a week the same as Tyler, but didn't start from the beginning, so they wouldn't have had the same total number.

[pidgeon92]

I'm a little curious as to why it took her five times through to figure out that there is a problem with the setup. You'd think by the second, or at least third time through that she'd have considered a change in the contest parameters.

Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
~ Albert Einstein