Avid reader kid dominates reading contest, library director miffed

[Katsunami]

Originally Posted by JDK1962

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

That's stupid... he should at least have given you a book title he'd know you'd be unable to recognize at that age, i.e. one you almost hadn't read (or even heard of) for sure.

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

You can say that again... but instead of trying to keep you with the program, the teachers should have recognized that you already know what to do and how, so they should have given you a more difficult assignment, or a different one.

[frahse]

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.

I was a designated "special borrower." The library allowed me to borrow 11 at a time instead of the usual 10. But I only read 2 or 3 a day.

I first used a rope to tie my books to the rack over my bike's back wheel. Then I found an old leather belt in my dad's closet that I burned extra holes in with a heated nail. I would then strap the books on. It was pretty neat!

Now days of course the backpack does everything.

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by Jovvi

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!

And by 'encourage reading' what do you mean? You seem to treat this as an 'all or nothing' situation. Only compete if you have a chance of winning. Why does the younger brother bother to compete then?

Do you look at the forum members that have in their signature the number of books that they read this year and decide that there is no point in reading another book this year because you aren't going to read more than them? Should we demand that those who read 100 books per year not rub this in the faces of those who don't have the time for it?

Originally Posted by fjtorres

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.

I think that knowing that another kid was able to read 63 books in 6 weeks can actually motivate other kids to read more. If reading 10 books in 6 weeks is all that is needed, and the library discourages spreading the word that a 9 year old can read much more than that I think that the others are going to read less, not more.

[Mivo]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

I think that knowing that another kid was able to read 63 books in 6 weeks can actually motivate other kids to read more.

Or it can discourage them from taking their time with a book. Rushing through it instead of savoring the rich imaginary, perhaps looking up subjects or places on Wikipedia, discussing the read materials with parents, daydreaming about the adventure.

But it's symptomatic of the results-oriented society: Everything is a contest and a competition, even recreation.

[Jessica Lares]

Our summer program at our library was just sitting down and listening to live speakers, and it was a lottery where they'd had out free books every week. They gave us coupons for reading too, but it was like for every 7 books you read.

They need to do it on a per grade level basis, one winner per grade. But honestly, they're making such a big deal for something that probably won't even be a big problem next year since he's going to be in 5th grade and he'd have reached that age limit where the program isn't even suitable for him anymore.

We only had a two books out limit at our school, but my mom always went in there and grabbed a bunch after hours for me when I was in elementary school. I think we had like three reading programs if I remember correctly...

The teachers made us read everyday, then there was the one where we had to read all the Bluebonnet Award winning books, and then another. They don't do the third one anymore, which I'm perfectly thrilled that my brother never had to do.

The way it worked is that every book was numbered with points. You had to get like 20 points every six weeks. The points were based on review questions you'd have to go and answer on the program in the library. I think the biggest issue with it, especially because I could never do it and I knew books from back to front (because I usually read pages a few times before flipping the page ), is that it was too random and obscure. Like it would ask you about something in the story, but something that was meaningless. And so you could know the plot, the settings, the characters, but it would ask you about someone's dog and other weird stuff that most of us wouldn't recall.

Thankfully that was one of the things that went when they started scaling down on the budget. Because it was just awful. I got a lot of notes sent home about never getting any points, but honestly, it was just that hard to do and I ended up just blowing it off for that reason.

[speakingtohe]

I'm not even vaguely sure whether it is better to strive for excellence be happy if you barely muddle through life. Both have their pitfalls. Few of us reach a perfect balance.

I do think that schools and libraries should encourage people to do the best they can and occasionally this is the case.

I did very well in school until the day I came across a teacher asking my brother why he wasn't as smart as his sister. Even at 8 years old I knew there was something wrong there and decided to not be so smart. I was then content to simply pass every year and was actually sent to a psychiatrist at the schools expense to try and find out why. Luckily I enjoyed the psychiatrist and went for 2 years before they decided I was a lost cause. Probably not the reason I dropped out at 15 but may have helped.

I was not good in sports, or music, which annoyed me, but I can't recall resenting those who were. I tried out every year for sports, and took piano and violin lessons, but they wouldn't let me play and I was the only child in the entire school who was not allowed to be in a group sing at the music festival because I could throw the whole class off tune. Even the church didn't want me to sing hymns. I was truly terrible.

Didn't stop me from trying though even in high school, and I didn't resent those who could sing and play baseball. Envied them, and admired them, but didn't think they should not be allowed to compete just so I could finally be the best.

And where does it stop? Disqualify one child this year, another the next, there will still only be one winner, one runner up, etc. Giving everyone a prize is fine, but it doesn't change the fact that they didn't win.

Schools are less competitive overall these days and many pass everybody to avoid traumatization. Thus in many cases Johnny can't read and is totally unprepared for a life where he must read or complete his assignments or show up for work every day.

And where would we be without those of a competitive and stubborn nature who strive to become better or are smarter than average and don't get it beaten out of them?
It would be a much poorer world without them.

Helen

[Mivo]

Originally Posted by speakingtohe

I'm not even vaguely sure whether it is better to strive for excellence be happy if you barely muddle through life.

My "issue" (too strong a word) with competition is that it's so often not about improvement, but about being better than someone else (not even yesterday's self). This is why I prefer team-oriented goals, and a team can excel, too.

Maybe my views are too idealistic. Perhaps I have seen too many colleagues turn to alcohol or other drugs, some to escape the race for a bit, others to boost their performance -- so that they could be better, better than someone else.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by speakingtohe

And where would we be without those of a competitive and stubborn nature who strive to become better or are smarter than average and don't get it beaten out of them?
It would be a much poorer world without them.

Helen

Ding. Ding. Ding.

Like it or not, it is the stubborn achievement-focused people who mold the world and drag the rest of us--like it or not, resent it or not--into the future.

[PeterT]

Originally Posted by speakingtohe

Wow I've never managed to read 7 books in a day. 3 at most not counting novellas.

When I was 11 I was reading mainly SF and westerns, and was possibly reading 4-5 a week in winter, summer maybe 3-4

Helen

The funny thing has to be that until I was maybe 8 (and still living in the UK) we had no television. My parents finally got one in an attempt to stop me reading so much!

I didn't work!

[Mivo]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

Like it or not, it is the stubborn achievement-focused people who mold the world and drag the rest of us--like it or not, resent it or not--into the future.

Looking at the world, I'm not sure it's beneficial for the "rest of us" to be dragged by those who put personal achievement over everything.

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by Mivo

Or it can discourage them from taking their time with a book. Rushing through it instead of savoring the rich imaginary, perhaps looking up subjects or places on Wikipedia, discussing the read materials with parents, daydreaming about the adventure.

But it's symptomatic of the results-oriented society: Everything is a contest and a competition, even recreation.

I don't know about you, but the more I like a book, the faster I read it. There is nothing stopping these children from rereading once the competition is over. And if competing puts them off reading than why enter in the first place?

[speakingtohe]

Originally Posted by Mivo

My "issue" (too strong a word) with competition is that it's so often not about improvement, but about being better than someone else (not even yesterday's self). This is why I prefer team-oriented goals, and a team can excel, too.

Maybe my views are too idealistic. Perhaps I have seen too many colleagues turn to alcohol or other drugs, some to escape the race for a bit, others to boost their performance -- so that they could be better, better than someone else.

I almost see your point if the goal is not to be better but personally directed at someone specific especially if it is motivated by dislike. Doesn't seem most people are that way, but I could be wrong. There is always someone at the top to beat, but that is the same in most aspects of life. Very few people are the best at everything but some are.

Some people are naturally motivated, some (more?) need a carrot on a stick. Giving everyone a prize is doing the carrot on the stick people a disservice perhaps.

Personally I have found more people resort to alcohol and drugs do to being unemployable or being stuck on the bottom rung of the rat race with no chance for advancement or even a living wage.

Lots of sober people who are not completely unhappy in all walks of life though. Perhaps your successful colleagues are unlucky in that they can afford to pay for alcohol or drugs, but I am inclined to say boohoo even though I know it is unworthy of me. I guess I would rather be a reasonably well off substance abuser than a dirt poor one given the choice.

Helen

[speakingtohe]

Originally Posted by Mivo

Looking at the world, I'm not sure it's beneficial for the "rest of us" to be dragged by those who put personal achievement over everything.

Obviously this is correct. Most dictators for example are not benevolent.

I was speaking of achievers, not people who put achieving over everything, but those who see develop new ideas and/or those who do something because it should be done.

Someone, or multiple someones, figured out how to start a fire, build a hut, plant grain, fashion clay pots and fight disease.

Frankly I am for the most part happy that they did. There are those who would be happier living in caves as long as everyone else had to do it too. For them it is definitely preferable that everyone gets a prize. Me, I do like my sliced bread and electricity and adequate medical care etc. I think I prefer my doctor, for instance, to be an overachiever.

Helen

[Katsunami]

Originally Posted by Mivo

Looking at the world, I'm not sure it's beneficial for the "rest of us" to be dragged by those who put personal achievement over everything.

I agree. I won't be dragged anywhere, if I can help it. I've been known to abandon software, companies, services, or even people who try to do that. With regard to this, I'm very stubborn and very blunt.

With regard to "The Race" you mentioned, I've already tuned out as much as possible. If I've got enough to live comfortably, it's good enough for me. I'm not looking to acquire more and more, and move to a bigger house as soon as I can, and so on. If possible, I'd rather live in a cabin in a forest somehwere.

But, as long as there are people who think it's fully justified (and even reasonable) to earn $50 million in one year, other people will try to get there too, or at least, as far as possible, and keep racing.

[Mivo]

I think my chief concern is really only the "pitching people against each other" thing, like in a rat race. I feel it's very possible to achieve great things, and motivate people, without the gold stars for doing well. It's not about wanting to encourage mediocrity, but about motivating kids to improve for reasons other than want to win.

I still recommend Alfie Kohn's "No Contest". (I like all his books, unsurprisingly. )