Avid reader kid dominates reading contest, library director miffed

[fjtorres]

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.

Irrelevant.
Giants make waves.

The achievers do their thing because it is their nature to try to be the best they can be so unless you set out to stunt the development of our best and brightest to protect the ego of the free riders you will get giants or they will go where they can grow to their natural ceiling.

The beauty of it is the achievers can and do come from everywhere and they play in every arena. For every about Gates or Gretsky or Brin or Musk we hear about there are hundreds of achievers safely beyond the reach of those that resent them. That can change but until it does civilization is (mostly) safe.

The subject kid might grow up to be a geneticist or a writer or an engineer or an artist.
There is no way of knowing how (or if) he will change the world to suit him until after he has done it. And there are a million more like him out there.

So resent them all you want, it won't change a thing.
As the library director is about to find out, talent plus drive will always find a way.

[speakingtohe]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

Irrelevant.
Giants make waves.

The achievers do their thing because it is their nature to try to be the best they can be so unless you set out to stunt the development of our best and brightest to protect the ego of the free riders you will get giants or they will go where they can grow to their natural ceiling.

The beauty of it is the achievers can and do come from everywhere and they play in every arena. For every about Gates or Gretsky or Brin or Musk we hear about there are hundreds of achievers safely beyond the reach of those that resent them. That can change but until it does civilization is (mostly) safe.

The subject kid might grow up to be a geneticist or a writer or an engineer or an artist.
There is no way of knowing how (or if) he will change the world to suit him until after he has done it. And there are a million more like him out there.

So resent them all you want, it won't change a thing.
As the library director is about to find out, talent plus drive will always find a way.

Hmmm. Tell that to the Tutsi.

Many countries even today attempt to rid themselves of overachievers by pogroms, retraining camps, genocide and confinement. And history documents whole empires who have been taken over by those overachieving barbarians, because the overachievers within the empire were seen as a threat, or possibly viewed as smartasses

Helen

[Xen]

12345

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by speakingtohe

Hmmm. Tell that to the Tutsi.

Many countries even today attempt to rid themselves of overachievers by pogroms, retraining camps, genocide and confinement. And history documents whole empires who have been taken over by those overachieving barbarians, because the overachievers within the empire were seen as a threat, or possibly viewed as smartasses

Helen

But the dumbasses went first.
Smartasses are the pinnacle of human evolution.

There are times when competition is appropriate, and times when competition is not appropriate. Reading, in my opinion, falls into the latter category. That is particularly true when it comes down to raw consumption, though it may be appropriate to be more competitive when it comes down to comprehension and reading level. (I don't think that competition is appropriate, but it may work for some kids.)

On the issue of achievers: you don't have to be competitive in order to achieve, at least in the traditional sense of measuring one person against another. Quite often qualities such as diligence will produce better results.

[speakingtohe]

Originally Posted by BWinmill

On the issue of achievers: you don't have to be competitive in order to achieve, at least in the traditional sense of measuring one person against another. Quite often qualities such as diligence will produce better results.

True. But those that are diligent are looked on in the same way . How many times have I heard someone say in a tone of contempt, I could do just as well if I tried.

Helen

[Elfwreck]

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.

"Harrison Bergeron" by Kurt Vonnegut Jr. It's widely available online, but I doubt that it's authorized, so I'm not linking.

Rather than embarrassing and basically punishing the child in a thoroughly unprofessional manner, she could have made a rule that the previous years winner could not compete for a year, or made part of the prize a job assisting with next years contest and thus disqualified him. Or perhaps not spoken to the press without first engaging her brain.

Agreed.

She could declare this child a "5-Time Champion!," give him a special award, and say he's ineligible for future contests... unless they start holding some for just the champions.

It's appalling to tell a child, "You're too good at this. You win too much. Stop competing so other people can win something. Of course, they won't do as well as you did, but we don't actually care about rewarding the people who can do this best."

Switching to a name-in-a-hat drawing would be a travesty. There are polite ways to say "previous winners aren't eligible" without removing all the competition.

[wawasteele]

Personally, I would have loved this library when I was in kid.

There has been a lot of "team or group" talk in this thread. I was lousy at any type of sports, even team type of sports. If my team won, I sure didn't help them to win and everyone knew it! Being on the winning team didn't make me feel any type of accomplishment. It only made me relieved I hadn't caused them to lose. In academics I was better. If we teamed or grouped off, I knew I wouldn't ever cause a team to fail, but we all knew the kids who would. In my adult like, I personally hate being on a team of any kind, even playing cards.

Everyone is not the same. We all have different abilities and different motivations. This library, gives a party for everyone who reads a certain amount. I don't see the problem with giving an award to the overall winner. I would have loved to have a goal, that even if I never won, I would have known it was at least something realistic for me to try.

It appears, that this library offers two incentives:
1. The general party, to encourage all kids to read a minimum amount.
2. A prize for those who like competition.

To me, that seems to be the best of both worlds.

[crich70]

I took part in a summer reading program when I was a kid. I'd always seem to read more books than I had guessed that I would read. If I said 150 it would be more like 175 or something. lol. At the end of the summer each child got a certificate saying we'd completed the competition. Of course there were other things like field trips and being able to choose one book to keep (I think that was one way they library kept the stacks from overcrowding and made room for new books).

[crich70]

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

That story sounds familiar. I can't recall a title or author though.

[mrscoach]

I worked in a high school library for a couple of years. My son was in junior high when I started and then high school. Our school district used the Accelerated Reader (AR) program and the librarian for the district went against the company's own guidelines in setting goals for students. The company said to set a point goal WITH the student after having them take a certain test, but she set them where she thought they should be and it took an act of congress to change them. I should know, I tried to get my son's changed.

The second year, when it came time for the placement test, I advised my son to miss every third question, so as not to rate so high and get the top points required. (He had already read all the top point books in the library and couldn't reread and retest) He, instead, missed every other question on purpose, then told the librarian 'I' had told him to. She approached me and started reprimanding me. I told her that she was wrong, I had not told him to miss every other question, I had told him to miss every third. Why shouldn't he game the system like everyone else in the school? The students openly admitted to blowing the test.

Needless to say, she was livid with me. Her theory on making students read was 'lead that horse to water and FORCE it to drink'. I told her that would only cause the horse to drown if it didn't want to drink, or didn't like the water she had shoved its head in. She then told me that if one of my husband's athletes didn't practice he wouldn't play him in the game because he wouldn't be any good. (she actually talked about one specific athlete) I agreed with him, but pointed out that if my husband pushed too hard the athlete would quit completely, so her analogy didn't hold up.

Can you tell I worked in another part of the school the next year?

This librarian tried to talk all the teachers into making their AR goal part of the students' grades. All classes. Math teachers weren't happy with her. She and the Spanish teacher had a fight on their hands when they decided to do just that and I informed them that my daughter could be held accountable for reading some elementary level books in Spanish, but that anything else was completely inappropriate and I would go to the school board if needed. Why should my daughter's reading disability reflect poorly on her ability to learn Spanish? (Her Spanish was bad enough, no sense in dragging it down further.)

When a reward system was instituted where students got candy at the end of the six weeks for reaching their goal participation increased, but not greatly. Competition had been tired, that didn't work. No one wanted to win.

TLR version? Kids will read if they want and a competition isn't really going to change that. Some will be motivated by the desire to win, but mostly if they like reading to begin with. Athletes do not excel in a sport they detest.

[Ken Maltby]

Just wondering how it is established that a book was read? Does skimming count?
I notice that none of the posters so far have one of those books read indicators in their signature. How does GoodReads keep track?

Luck;
Ken

[Andrew H.]

I think it's stupid to have a reading competition. It's not a competitive sport.

But if you are going to have a competition, it's even more stupid to punish people who do well at it.

[odiakkoh]

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.

Sorry to be OT but do you happen to know the title of that story? Sounds exactly like the book my husband has been trying to find for years but he can't remember enough of it to do a good Google search.

[Rumpelteazer]

The only thing my library did in summer was to extend the time you were allowed to have a book and you were a allowed to check out two books more than usual. It looks like they now do more during the summer holiday; authors visiting and giving children a chance to interview them.

I can both see the point in what the librarian says and what the parents say. I don't think I would have been put off by someone reading more than me. But I can understand other children would. I think a prize draw, as others have suggested, would be the way to go. That way even children who read slower get a chance to win something.