Avid reader kid dominates reading contest, library director miffed

[graycyn]

When I was a kid my library always had a summer reading program. But it wasn't a contest. If you completed the program, you got a nice certificate, nothing more. You had to read a certain number of books, nothing unreasonable, but enough for it to be a little challenging. The main challenge was that you had to read at least one book in a variety of categories, some of which were fiction, some non-fiction.

Yes, I was one of those kids who read a lot and might finish several books a day, but on my own, I mostly read fiction, so the summer reading program still was a challenge and a learning experience. I looked forward to earning my certificate each year.

I think this library should change up the competition, there's clearly other ways to go about it based on the ideas in this thread. Emphasizing participation might be better.

[Katsunami]

Originally Posted by exaltedwombat

I worked at one elementary school where one teacher was a chess fanatic. That school swept the board at regional championships. Horribly elitist! But it worked, the whole school shared in the pride, and it would have been idiotic to stop it.

== Off Topic ==
Heh. I was IN such a school in the 90's. My math and chess teacher actually was just a tad below master level. (At that time, I was MUCH better at chess than I was at math.) At that time, I myself and two others in our school's team belonged to the top 5 of amateur under-18 players in our region.

To be honest, I have too many hobbies, and chess dropped off the chart somewhere along the way. I didn't touch a chess piece for over 10 years after leaving high-school, and even now it's only a sporadic pastime, playing maybe 1-2 games a month against the computer only, just when I feel like it.

If I'd go back 15-20 years and play some games against my teenage self, I'd be wiped out effortlesly and would think that scoring 1 or 2 points in a 10 game match (losing 2 to 8) would be a fine result. Nowadays my chess is pathetic compared to way back then. Luckily I've never met or played my former teacher after leaving high school. He'd probably be shocked to death or try to kill me after seeing some of my moves
== End ==

[QuantumIguana]

Originally Posted by exaltedwombat

UNLESS - and it's a big unless - in this particular library, with this particular staff and these particular kids it all worked well, everyone had a good time and lots of kids read more than they would have. Dogma mustn't destroy something good.

I'd say the dogma is the competition, and it shouldn't destroy the good of encouraging reading. A competition like this is likely to discourage the people it was meant to help.

[pillacd]

Originally Posted by PeterT

I remember my first summer in Canada; I was eleven. My routine was to ride a bike to the local library, borrow 7 books (the maximum allowed) and head home.

The next day, return the 7 books and repeat the cycle.

When I was in elementary school, the school had a borrowing cap of two books at once. They had to put a cap of, IIRC, 4 books a day because of me and another kid. Yes, we were reading in class instead of listening to the teachers - evidently some of them took it personally.

Hey, it's not like the Hardy Boys and Tom Swift took a lot of brain power, but they were entertaining.

[fjtorres]

Different people respond differently to different scenarios but most people, kids especially, relish competition. It is the single best way to drive people to push themselves to excel.
This is true of kids' games and business both.
Excellence seeks competition; mediocrity decries it, especially in the latter field.

[ProfCrash]

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.

The article said that the books had to be on an approved list and at or above your grade level. The books he was reading were approved and he was able to answer the questions about them.

We had a similar program at my library as a kid where we got coupons for ice cream if for every X number of books read. I always racked up the coupons. The librarians initially doubted I read that much and would ask me who my favorite character was, what my favorite plot point was, how did these things combine. They figured out that I read a lot and understood what I was reading. No biggie. I enjoyed the ice cream and the books.

[Mivo]

Originally Posted by ProfCrash

They figured out that I read a lot and understood what I was reading. No biggie. I enjoyed the ice cream and the books.

You got the coupons because of your achievements, regardless of how others performed. You were a winner, without there being a loser. I think that's the way to handle events like these. Works with adults too, not only children.

[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.

[Mookie]

Competition against yourself would be more meaningful. A personal improvement in quantity, quality, or just plain old enthusiasm would be a better measure to encourage readers.

[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.

[Jovvi]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

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

Sorry, I wrote wrong, I meant 10 per week of cause. Even so, I still think that the goal should be to encourage reading, and find the magic worlds of books, to participate.

Because I believe a kid like him (and his brother) really is in it for the books. If its not a competition, will they stop reading? I wish adults would stop making everything a competition. Competition can be good, but but it can also be discouraging. If you know you have to compete against Bolt at 100 m, would you not give up beforehand? I would!

[Grace Elliot]

Do they set some sort of comprehension test - the see if the kids have actually followed the story and retained some of the information? A big difference between turning pages and actually enjoying the book!

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

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.

Exactly.
At a minimum, the contest is teaching the kids perseverance, to stick with a task once they start it, to live up to a commitment, once made.
The books in question are obviously age-appropriate and, given the themes aspect, probably including a fair amount of non-fiction. I'm pretty sure there are precious few adults, much less kids of any age, who can say they've read at least one book about the 50 states.

If the educational system doesn't beat it out of him, that kid is going to build up one serious knowledge base by the time he hits adulthood.

[JDK1962]

My favorite library contest/childhood memory:

In 4th grade, we were herded to the library to "learn" how to use it (despite it being practically my second home). They handed out slips of paper with the names of books on them to each of us, with instructions that the first person to find their book wins.

I looked at the slip of paper, recognized the book name, walked to the shelf where I remembered it living, and brought it back. Of course, by bypassing the crowds at the card catalog, I was apparently missing the point of the contest, but anyway...

Not knowing quite what to do, the librarian gave me a second slip of paper. Same thing. Recognized book name, and retrieved it.

But really...no one likes a smart ass.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by JDK1962

But really...no one likes a smart ass.

Who cares?
It's *fun*!!!!
Besides, it's better than being a dumb ass.