Avid reader kid dominates reading contest, library director miffed

[Katsunami]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

Not sure.
I just deleted everything else in the quote.
Then I added my stuff outside the quote.
Unless Chrome for android changed it...??
I'll edit it.

Sorry. I did not intentionally put words in your mouth.

Don't fret it "Shortwave Engineer" combined with "The second will at least know that when the time comes, they will have done something to leave the world in a better shape than they found it" just made me think you were making some sort of epic pun or worldplay that I was somehow missing

Here's the thing: reading is consumption rather than creation. While reading can be used to improve oneself, it will never improve the world in itself. Learning how to read or improving reading proficiency may be a personal accomplishment, but reading in quantity is not an achievement for the greater good. In other words: you would accomplish pretty much the same thing if you had a TV watching competition.

A discussion like this may make sense if they were talking about writing competitions, because writing is an act of creation, but they aren't.

A program like this may have made sense if they were setting goalposts to encourage reading, rather than an outright competition, but they didn't.

[crich70]

Originally Posted by Katsunami

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....

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.

Uh, no offense Katsunami but if your eyesight is that bad and I needed you to be either a mechanic or brain surgeon I'd pick you for my mechanic. Less to go wrong if something gets put in the wrong spot.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by BWinmill

A discussion like this may make sense if they were talking about writing competitions, because writing is an act of creation, but they aren't.

The Library director's objection wasn't that he was reading too many books (your consumption argument) but that he was succeeding too much, which makes it an achievement issue.

Her "solutions" aren't directed at stopping his "consumption" of books but at keeping him from further wins, further achievement. His offense was excelling too much at *her* game.

[cortman]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

I was agreeing with your negation, that "excelling is not safe."
As in, nope, it isn't safe.

*facepalm. I finally realized that finally a few hours ago. Cheers for agreement.

[rkomar]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

The Library director's objection wasn't that he was reading too many books (your consumption argument) but that he was succeeding too much, which makes it an achievement issue.

Her "solutions" aren't directed at stopping his "consumption" of books but at keeping him from further wins, further achievement. His offense was excelling too much at *her* game.

His offense was making the competition useless for promoting reading among the rest of the kids, who could probably use some prodding in that direction. The seven-book-a-day kid doesn't need any more encouragement to read. I really don't see the need to bring the tall poppy syndrome into this.

[Andrew H.]

Originally Posted by rkomar

His offense was making the competition useless for promoting reading among the rest of the kids, who could probably use some prodding in that direction. The seven-book-a-day kid doesn't need any more encouragement to read. I really don't see the need to bring the tall poppy syndrome into this.

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.

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by BWinmill

Here's the thing: reading is consumption rather than creation. While reading can be used to improve oneself, it will never improve the world in itself. Learning how to read or improving reading proficiency may be a personal accomplishment, but reading in quantity is not an achievement for the greater good. In other words: you would accomplish pretty much the same thing if you had a TV watching competition.

A discussion like this may make sense if they were talking about writing competitions, because writing is an act of creation, but they aren't.

A program like this may have made sense if they were setting goalposts to encourage reading, rather than an outright competition, but they didn't.

Science requires large quantities of reading, and requires a good memory as well. Finding your way around a library, and quickly finding books on a given topic are also useful skills.

Originally Posted by rkomar

His offense was making the competition useless for promoting reading among the rest of the kids, who could probably use some prodding in that direction. The seven-book-a-day kid doesn't need any more encouragement to read. I really don't see the need to bring the tall poppy syndrome into this.

Actually this is the 1.5-book-a-day kid. And the point of the competition is not about reading any book, but reading books on a given topic. Despite Jovvi's theory that this is about getting some kids in the club to read more despite the fact that they haven't learned the joy of reading, I think that it is far more likely that the topics were badly chosen and didn't hold the children's interest and the librarian is trying to blame the result of her lack of understanding of what book topics would hold the interest of children on the achievement of a 9 year old kid.

The example from the article was that the summer theme from a few years ago was 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.

If you only plan on reading 10 books, you will have to put in effort to find 10 books to cover the sections, and hold your interest as well.

Originally Posted by Andrew H.

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.

I'm pretty sure that hearing about someone's great achievements is supposed to be motivational.

Originally Posted by Andrew H.

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

Right, in school everyone with passing grades graduates and you have one valedictorian. In this case everyone who read 10 books goes to the party and you have one kid-who-read-most-books. The librarian would pick the valedictorian's name out of a hat.

[Sil_liS]

I do have a question for those who think that the librarian's plan would have worked: how?

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.

If she planned to change the rules after the 6 weeks period (ended Aug. 3rd) but before they announced (the t-shirt was given on Aug. 15th) how were the kids supposed to get motivated by this?

[rkomar]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

I do have a question for those who think that the librarian's plan would have worked: how?

I can't speak for anyone else, but I wasn't saying that the librarian's plan was good. I was just arguing against the position that this was a case of tall poppy syndrome. My impression is that most of us arguing against that position also believe that using competition to foster a love of reading is misguided. So, there seems to be consent that she screwed up, but disagreement on exactly what the screw-up was.

[Jovvi]

Ok, so a kid that hates reading probably would'nt join such a reading club and will not discover the "joy of reading" that way. However there are a lot of kids that "like" reading but are a bit slower and there are those that are just beginning to like reading, to get to the point where it is no a struggle anymore. They are probably the kids that the librarian where aiming for, trying tho encourage them. She went about it in the wrong way (I think) and made it a competition that the kid that read fastest won. She then wrongly "blamed" him when it was her rules that missed the target, instead of just rewarding him and then change the rules. When media then called (because the mom called them being upset that her son would possible not win anymore) she could just have said "we wanted to try a new model this year/next year"

It's not wrong with competition, but if the goal is to get more kids to read you don't want them to quit before they have even tried, wich some kids will if they feel the have "no chance" to win. Sure, some kids may go on anyway but most kids stay far away from activities they feel a failure at, as do most adults. People don't wan't to be a failure if they can choose not to be. Setting to high goals that most can't reach will stop people from participating. To challenge people is another thing, that you do by setting the goal high but reachable.

[Arbait]

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!

wiki: satirical and dystopian science-fiction short story written by Kurt Vonnegut Jr. and first published in October 1961. Originally published in The Magazine of Fantasy and Science Fiction, the story was republished in the author's Welcome to the Monkey House collection in 1968. The satire raises a serious question concerning desirability of social equality and the extent to which society is prepared to go to achieve it.

[Sregener]

Originally Posted by BWinmill

While reading can be used to improve oneself, it will never improve the world in itself. Learning how to read or improving reading proficiency may be a personal accomplishment, but reading in quantity is not an achievement for the greater good. In other words: you would accomplish pretty much the same thing if you had a TV watching competition.

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.

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by rkomar

I can't speak for anyone else, but I wasn't saying that the librarian's plan was good. I was just arguing against the position that this was a case of tall poppy syndrome. My impression is that most of us arguing against that position also believe that using competition to foster a love of reading is misguided. So, there seems to be consent that she screwed up, but disagreement on exactly what the screw-up was.

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.

Originally Posted by Jovvi

Ok, so a kid that hates reading probably would'nt join such a reading club and will not discover the "joy of reading" that way.

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.

Originally Posted by Jovvi

However there are a lot of kids that "like" reading but are a bit slower and there are those that are just beginning to like reading, to get to the point where it is no a struggle anymore. They are probably the kids that the librarian where aiming for, trying tho encourage them. She went about it in the wrong way (I think) and made it a competition that the kid that read fastest won. She then wrongly "blamed" him when it was her rules that missed the target, instead of just rewarding him and then change the rules. When media then called (because the mom called them being upset that her son would possible not win anymore) she could just have said "we wanted to try a new model this year/next year"

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.

Originally Posted by Jovvi

It's not wrong with competition, but if the goal is to get more kids to read you don't want them to quit before they have even tried, wich some kids will if they feel the have "no chance" to win. Sure, some kids may go on anyway but most kids stay far away from activities they feel a failure at, as do most adults. People don't wan't to be a failure if they can choose not to be. Setting to high goals that most can't reach will stop people from participating. To challenge people is another thing, that you do by setting the goal high but reachable.

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.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by rkomar

I can't speak for anyone else, but I wasn't saying that the librarian's plan was good. I was just arguing against the position that this was a case of tall poppy syndrome. My impression is that most of us arguing against that position also believe that using competition to foster a love of reading is misguided. So, there seems to be consent that she screwed up, but disagreement on exactly what the screw-up was.

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.

The poppy had grown too big for *them*.
Too much success, as defined by *them*, is offensive and not to be tolerated.

And since the library director has the *power* to enforce *her* standards of propriety this is very much like the Vonnegut story.

"It is okay to win four times, children, but not five. Winning a fifth time means you are bad and don't care about the feelings of others. And that you deserve to penalized."

It is, in fact, about enforcing conformity with "standards" set by those in power.

And similar stories abound:
http://notesandqueries.ca/school-is-...-for-a-reader/

The teacher calls the child’s mother. “She has to stop talking in class about the books she’s reading. It’s very insensitive. She’s making other students feel bad.”

“They feel bad? Why? What is she saying?”

“She said that Harry Potter isn’t hard to read.”