The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn
discussion
Librarian Proposes Ban of Child Super-Reader
There is no reason to ban the kid. Everyone can't be a winner. It is a fact of life. If someone else wants to win the contest, they should work hard at reading more.
Chris wrote: "There is no reason to ban the kid. Everyone can't be a winner. It is a fact of life. If someone else wants to win the contest, they should work hard at reading more."That is a valid point Chris. And I agree that banning the child is probably not the best solution. I am wondering though, if the idea of "work harder and you could win too" isn't the very problem with our perspective in general, with this contest and with how our society operates. Working harder doesn't always = winning, or even succeeding, to the standard that many would consider success, but maybe that's okay. Maybe doing our best, or simply doing well should also be rewarded or recognized in some way, especially when we are growing and learning, as children. ?
If they want everyone to be rewarded then it should be a tier system. Reach this level of books read (say 50, 100, 150) and win a prize. If we are talking about head-to-head read offs, which it sounds like this competition is, then winner takes all. Society doesn't need to pat everyone on their backs for doing well.
I am unsurprised by the mother that falsified her child's efforts, by winning they have only failed themselves. The reward is in the journey itself. Those who get the most out of these sorts of events are not the fastest readers but the most careful.
Why do there have to be losers and winners [or only one winner]? Why not have a child set a goal that is not published for all to see, just privy to the library staff or someone not biased? Then the child could report each book checked off a list, or added to his or her tally.At the end of the "contest," a list could be published of what percentage of the goal the child has read, or more fair (in my opinion), just list the children's names who reached their reasonable goals.
It would be up to someone who could give each child some wise counsel to suggest what number and kind of books that would be included in that individual's goals. A reward would be for a "job well done, " or that one followed up on a commitment made.
Isn't this more what summer reading should be: to encourage children to read without making someone a winner, and therefore all others, losers? Isn't this what life in a civilized country should be like, rather than always having to be first or to feel a failure?
The answer: ban all contests.
Patrick wrote: "I am unsurprised by the mother that falsified her child's efforts, by winning they have only failed themselves. The reward is in the journey itself. Those who get the most out of these sorts of eve..."The cheating parent/child demonstrate one reason why we need to take a look at why we place so much importance on not just competition but the idea that it is necessary to compete and only a success to win at all costs. I wonder what winning the contest meant to that mother that she would participate in a "scam" with her child.
Charlene wrote: "Isn't this more what summer reading should be: to encourage children to read without making someone a winner, and therefore all others, losers? Isn't this what life in a civilized country should be like, rather than always having to be first or to feel a failure? ..."Exactly what I am wondering myself. What is the price of this sort of competitive "win at all costs" and "the only valuable work is hard work and the only way to succeed is harder work, and the only goal is to be the best." There are way too many of us getting this message, working hard, working harder, and working harder still, and not making ends meet, and not only feeling that it is because we are doing something wrong or not working hard enough, but having the finger pointed at us as being slackers or lacking ambition because "all it takes it hard work and ambition to be a success" is the prevailing, and false, message we receive. And it is the message we give our children.
My first thought was also that the parent is probably falsifying reading logs. Regardless, if the kid is "hogging" the contest, it is time to change the reading program. Our public library has the child set a goal for the summer, log books they have completed, and if they reach their goal, they get a small reward. For the adults who participate in the program, they set their reading goal, log books read, and are entered into a drawing for a prize at the end if their goal has been met. Cheating can still happen, but at least honest people who set and reach reasonable goals have a chance for success.
They shouldn't ban him but if they wanted someone else to have a chance, they could have created a 2nd place prize or like someone else said, created a tiered program. The point is to encourage someone to read and obviously that boy reads a lot (unless his parents falsified the records) so they got their wish. They shouldn't penalize him for that.
There are winners and there are losers. Why do we as a society want to shelter children from this fact? Our library rewards each child based on the number of books they read not the person who reads the most wins though isn't that true :)
Shelly wrote: "There are winners and there are losers. Why do we as a society want to shelter children from this fact? Our library rewards each child based on the number of books they read not the person who re..."Why? Why are there winners and losers? That is a foregone conclusion that we are taught to believe, is it not? But is it a fact? And is it necessary. If it wasn't taught, then there would be nothing to shelter children from, isn't that true? I would ask what is the benefit of making competition, a winners and losers core belief, our societal norm/expectation/requirement. Do we believe that without keeping score we will all sit down and stop trying/learning/playing?
In some situations, yes, many people would stop trying if there was no incentive to do the task. What excuse do minimum wage workers use to be slackers? "They don't pay me enough to do that."
Leslie wrote: "Shelly wrote: "There are winners and there are losers. Why do we as a society want to shelter children from this fact? Our library rewards each child based on the number of books they read not th..."Not everyone gets to be president or the CEO. If you start a company you may fail the first 20 times but be wildly successful the 21st. If you have never failed or lost will you even try? I've failed more than succeeded but that just makes success sweeter no one ever told me I wouldn't fail nor did they shelter me from it.
No, the kid shouldn't be banned but it's probably true that the other children are probably discouraged by him always winning and them getting nothing for all their hard work. I really don't think it should be a competition where the person who reads most wins, each child should be congratulated for doing their best. In libraries in the UK there is a summer reading thing where primary school aged children aim to read 6 books in the 6 weeks of summer holidays. Each child gets a little leaflet and a sticker for each book they read (in some places they get wristbands too). When the kids go back to school medals and certificates are sent to the school for all the children who participated and read all 6 books. I think something similar to that is a better idea because it means children are encouraged to read but won't get upset that someone else is so much faster at reading that they don't stand a chance.
What some of the people are saying above about winners and losers is sort of true but shouldn't be shoved in the face of children. Kids need to build confidence and a good attitude towards life. If someone always beats them by far even if they're trying really hard they might start thinking "if I can't win what's the point in trying", and may stick to that in later life, creating a (another?) generation of slackers.
Lilac wrote: "No, the kid shouldn't be banned but it's probably true that the other children are probably discouraged by him always winning and them getting nothing for all their hard work. I really don't think ..."That is a great example of a successful cultural model that doesn't brand one the "slacker" and another the "success," and doesn't teach children that they are bound by "fact of life" to the winner versus loser model, but that achieving an equal goal can result in success and satisfaction. I am not a fan of the obvious "not everyone can be the president" cop-out in these sorts of conversation. They don't really lead anywhere and only serve to shut down the consideration of other thoughts and possibilities to the current (and obviously not working) model we have created for our society. I am certainly not suggesting that everyone is equal, or should be equal, but I do think we place too much (and too early) emphasis on winner/loser models, and not enough emphasis on making sure everyone has a comfortable and basically satisfying shot at life.
The librarian needs to be censured for expressing her thoughts in public - she is after all affecting children. Like it or not there will always be someone way ahead of the others but I don't think the answer is to penalize this child, doing so might make him feel that he perhaps has made a mistake. I like the ideas expressed above - a tiered system - let each child along with a parent & advisor set a goal of the number of books to be read; award perhaps (x) number of (favourite) books for 100% achieved, (y) number for 75% etc ......
Samantha wrote: "In some situations, yes, many people would stop trying if there was no incentive to do the task. What excuse do minimum wage workers use to be slackers? "They don't pay me enough to do that.""This. Though I hate to bring it up, doesn't communism actually function in a similar manner? People aren't as hardworking as we'd like to believe, so if everyone is rewarded equally, nothing motivates people to accomplish extraordinary things. Kids wouldn't strive to get good grades if their chances of getting a better job than those who didn't succeed at the same task wouldn't increase. I know that I wouldn't have done so in school had I not gotten anything out of it. The truth of the matter is that most people aren't going to put in the extra work if they're not moved to do that.
Chris wrote: "There is no reason to ban the kid. Everyone can't be a winner. It is a fact of life. If someone else wants to win the contest, they should work hard at reading more."I agree. There's nothing to stop other kids from coming after the kid's crown. He should be punished? For what? Being motivated? What kind of message does THAT send? It's that 'Everyone wins a trophy' attitude that's responsible for nobody thinking they need to work for the big prize. The librarian means well but she's wrong.
Patrick wrote: "I am unsurprised by the mother that falsified her child's efforts, by winning they have only failed themselves. The reward is in the journey itself. Those who get the most out of these sorts of eve..."There is much truth to this. I used to read fast and it was almost like eye exercises. I read Wuthering Heights in junior high and upon re-reading the same paperback copy in college was shocked to find I remembered NOTHNG. Not details. Not the plot. Nothing. But hey, I was FAST!
Christina wrote: "I hate to bring it up, doesn't communism actually function in a similar manner? People aren't as hardworking as we'd like to believe, so if everyone is rewarded equally, nothing motivates people to accomplish extraordinary things. Kids wouldn't strive to get good grades if their chances of getting a better job than those who didn't succeed at the same task wouldn't increase. I know that I wouldn't have done so in school had I not gotten anything out of it. The truth of the matter is that most people aren't going to put in the extra work if they're not moved to do that."The problem with communism isn't lack of motivation and incentive in the people, it's corruption and abuse in the government. The people who are receiving the least in this country are actually harder working than we give them credit for, and those coming from that situation are doing extraordinary things just to get through the day paycheck to paycheck, but since they are working 2 and 3 times as hard to do what many of us take for granted through our entitlement and privilege, it either goes unnoticed or they are not measuring up to what we consider "success." I wouldn't suggest that everyone be rewarded equally, but I would suggest that we could do better with changing our perspective to reflect reality.
I've worked in and with many libraries and have never seen a contest that has a "First Prize" for only one kid. They had goals with rewards, not rankings. One of my favorite memories as a kid was how we'd get these sheets to fill out the titles of books on our grade-level and for every filled sheet we'd get a coupon for something at Dairy Queen. I helped a miscreant friend just copy down all my books so we could go get ice creams together. The librarian (who knew me because I just about lived there) just gave us a sly look. Later I realized she must have known I helped him. But I didn't. I felt sorry for him that he only knew his little life in our neighborhood and I knew about all sorts of worlds, real and imagined. That was the real reward of reading; the sundae was just the cherry on top.As for the tangential remarks above about minimum wage workers/slackers, you should spend a day following a minimum-wage nurse's aid, or below-minimum-wage home health care worker. Our pay scales are not based on whether the work is mentally demanding, laborious, difficult, or requiring significant skill. Were that the case then the people doing the above jobs would be rich and a lot of well-connected suits would be on food stamps.
Gregsamsa wrote: "Later I realized she must have known I helped him. But I didn't. I felt sorry for him that he only knew his little life in our neighborhood and I knew about all sorts of worlds, real and imagined. That was the real reward of reading; the sundae was just the cherry on top.As for the tangential remarks above about minimum wage workers/slackers, you should spend a day following a minimum-wage nurse's aid, or below-minimum-wage home health care worker. Our pay scales are not based on whether the work is mentally demanding, laborious, difficult, or requiring significant skill. Were that the case then the people doing the above jobs would be rich and a lot of well-connected suits would be on food stamps." <--- yes! That's what I'm talking about. Great sharing/insight/perspective!
if the kid is virtually unbeatable, then the librarian should see that the runner up gets a meaningful prize as well, in case (which, most probably, will be) the "superkid" does win this sixth time. If he wants to popularize reading that much, he shouldn't just ban a kid just because he is overly capable. I think that there should be two winners this time.
Akash wrote: " If he wants to popularize reading that much, he shouldn't just ban a kid just because he is overly capable. I think that there should be two winners this time. " Do you think that winning a prize is an effective way to motivate children to learn and play? It has been said that "not every kid needs to be a winner" but is it also possible that not every accomplishment/challenge needs to be rewarded? What lesson do children learn when there is a payment attached to every task? Some even think that the use of a grading system in school could be revised to take the emphasis away from "reward." But some believe that without reward we will end up with a bunch of lazy kids. I haven't really spent much time studying it, but I didn't receive an allowance when I was a kid and I managed to keep my space tidy and my school work done. Some children need some encouragement/motivation, for sure, but from the sounds of the article, the child who keeps winning is already pretty motivated to read, and this probably wouldn't change without the contest.
maybe the kid could participate but not win if drawn, that is what happened to me.
While the grading system does foster competitiveness that can be destructive in some ways, it also helps weed out those individuals who possess talent in certain fields, which becomes useful at some point. Those people who grasp the concepts of physics better than their peers, for instance, are better suited to being physicists than said peers. There is nothing wrong with wanting to have the best doctors or the best architects, or the best of anything for that matter, on hand.As for the prizes, I definitely think that they can motivate children to learn, to display talents that they might not have displayed otherwise. Sure, most kids aren't going to win, but even a loss can teach a child something. I didn't win everything as a child, and I just had to take from the losses what I could. The lessons in realism were not detrimental to my state of mind in the long run.
Librarians who use tangible rewards to encourage reading risk creating an overjustification effect because reading is normally an activity that carries its own rewards (they're intrinsic). The kids who rack up enormous numbers of books to win awards are not always the ones who end up enjoying reading the most.
We have this reading program at our library. I'm not sure if it's set up the same way in every library, but this is what we do: at the beginning of summer, each kid is given a book log. If they bring the book log back each week with at least one new book written in it, they get a prize out of the treasure chest. We also have a competition each week between the boys and the girls. If the girls read more books for the given week, all the girls get a prize, and vice versa. This is in addition to the prize they get out of the treasure chest for adding at least one new book to their book log. So while the one boy seems to always win the top prize, I doubt the other kids are going home empty-handed.
If the kid follows the contest rules, and wins, then he wins, and so be it. Or they could handicap him with an eye patch and poor lighting.
![Raevyn "Lucia" [I'm in it for the books]](https://images.gr-assets.com/users/1374959527p1/18721584.jpg)
The other kids need to learn to lose.
I agree with the sentiments that the rules for this contest need to be changed if the lirarian is unhappy with them. As far as I can tell, the program rules are not set in stone and are at the discretion of the library in which it's held. This means that there can be a tiered system, or whatever else. I find it deplorable that anyone should suggest that this boy be penalized for operating the best under the prescribed rules. Yes, he's the best. So what? So the other kids are not the best. That's how superlatives work. If there's a best, then everything else is not.
As to the suggestion that we are teaching kids about winning and losing and that this is not a desired lesson for them, bah! This is intrinsic to human nature. It's demonstrated in every civilization to some degree, even primitive peoples. Even if the librarian decides to adopt an "everyone's a winner" approach, it's ridiculous to assume that the children won't learn the winning/losing lesson elsewhere. Why not let them learn in it in a safe environment?
I think it's naive to assume that letting kids learn the lesson that they can't always win will somehow produce a generation of slackers. The lesson of life is this: there will ALWAYS be someone better than you (even if you're the best at the moment), and there will ALWAYS be someone worse than you (even if you're the loser at the moment). THIS is what we should be teaching kids: that being okay is, well okay. You can strive to be better than you are, and set goals and attain them. That's great! You will also have failures in life. It's what you do with those failures that defines you. THAT needs to be taught to kids, and the earlier the better. Failure at one thing, or even at repeated attempts at one thing does not necessarily breed apathy. Though kids can learn this lesson early if we let them; let's all agree to help engender perseverance over apathy.
Leslie wrote: "Akash wrote: " If he wants to popularize reading that much, he shouldn't just ban a kid just because he is overly capable. I think that there should be two winners this time. " Do you think that..."
I completely agree with the your last thought. Though, the focus is not on the that child. The contest, through a reward system, does not aim to be a cog in the materialistic education system, if you see it that way.
In real world, in general, rewards are the only way most of the people get motivated, and then tend to stay that way. Of course, there are others, who will continue to strive for excellence even in their absence. But those are the people who are wanting to do that, aren't they. For instance, you were a good kid, who kept her rooms tidy, and finished all your chores on time. But I for one, was always lazy. Procastination was a virtue newfound in me. :D No amount of scolding or threat moved me, until my parents grounded me. So, you can say that I cleaned my room, and got my freedom as a reward.
I'd say, this barter system of do some, get some does really seem to work. Granted, we'd like the kids to be educated and more aware of the literature as they grow up. But the impetus is just not there for the majority of them.
Also, not sure if I'd put it the way Raevyn has, but its also true that by showing that they are under-acheving, we can tell the kids to gear up. And if they'd want to be a part of that actvity, they will, otherwise they'll try and find some other rewarding skill that they have developed. For eg, try asking the football star of your school/college to finish Richard III in a week, with a geeky award at the end. We'll see what he has to say about that.
Would we tell the kid who has won the 100 meter race 5 times in a row that he/she cannot enter the race again? Maybe, if when the initial rules were that 5 in a row winners would be considered grand champions. But, typically, no. Or how about a contest to walk the most steps in the summer? Isn't encouraging running or walking (or any physical activity) a good thing? So is encouraging kids to read. Maybe the problem is how the winner is measured. As someone suggested above, a contest based on the number of books "read" does not necessarily mean the person who reads the most books/pages is the best reader. Make the contest relevant to what is the point to be achieved. I think contests are a good way to get someone to do something they might not otherwise do, but only if they like to compete (or their parents do). But a contest based on the number of books/pages read does not seem to be the appropriate contest for encouraging reading.
I'm not advocating for banning a contestant for being too successful...but if's he's read that many books, wouldn't it be a great reward to invite him to plan the next contest? You know, let him (if he chooses to) step up to the next level? Just a thought...
Leslie wrote: "Charlene wrote: "Isn't this more what summer reading should be: to encourage children to read without making someone a winner, and therefore all others, losers? Isn't this what life in a civilized ..."They obviously haven't read "The Outliers" by Malcolm Gladwell. :)
Shouldn't this discussion be located under Harrison Bergeron instead of Huck Finn?
Kevin wrote: "Shouldn't this discussion be located under Harrison Bergeron instead of Huck Finn?"Love it!!!
Harrison Bergeron has been much on my mind lately.....what with all the talk about "gene pool winners".......I keep waiting for the lobotomy squad to show up at my door to provide with with some "equalization services."
/me remembers one book...in which there was major sport competition. (with TV translation, wages,etc).
It was held several times.
Starting from 2nd time, everyone were almost sure who will get 1st place (and that person have a lot of influence, abilities,etc but get 1st place without any cheating (if we don't consider innate abilites and a lot of combat training 'cheating').
Everyone just were interested who will get 2nd place instead. Issue solved.
I think of the movie "An Officer and a Gentleman" by analogy - will this speedy kid who has now mastered the obstacle course be the one to go back and help Seeger over the wall? Maybe the library should hire him as a reading tutor to other kids, and that's another reward for winning. Looks great on college applications, too.
I would have entered such a competition 100 years ago as the only thing I stood a chance of winning. Whats the point of reading if you don't do a lot of it? Joe fajerman
After reading this article, both sides have this wrong. As someone that grew up with major reading issues, I know I would have not even tried if it was a win/lose, true competition. Reading, in my mind, should not be a competition. Not everyone reads at the same pace. Some people's brains process the written word differently. The goal of these programs should be first and for most encouraging kids to read. Full stop! Anything else will not push those kids that need the practice in the summer months to try to get better. That was probably what the librarian was aiming for, but really missed the mark. Banning a kid should not be the answer. If that was what they felt they needed to do, then they need to figure out why that problem came up in the first place. This issue should have never gotten this far.
Our local library (Multnomah county, Oregon) does a game board and it is more about that you read, based more on time read, not how much. They also count stupid things like watching movies based on books and going to library activities. I wish they would hold some of the prizes for those that get the game boards late, slower readers, or out of town and read while on trips. Their program is not perfect either, and it could improve- Love the quizzing part! Also helps with comprehension. But that also means man power, and I doubt that they can, or are willing to try that.
Reading is something that we all need to practice and fine tune. If we can't read well, jobs are very few and very far between. These programs should be working on that practice and fine tuning, not who can do it best.
I have a couple of thoughts about this article and the proposed banning of the 5 time winner. 1. Reading plenty of books is a good thing. Libraries SHOULD be encouraging kids to read.
2. Having the same winner year after year would be discouraging to some, so perhaps there can be awards by age group and/or gender in order to spread the encouragement around a bit.
The whole reason for having the contest is to encourage kids to read more, especially the ones who are not natural readers like this kid. He's a ringer, much better at it than everyone else. In the example of the 100 meter race, it would be like showing up at the start line and seeing Olympic champion Usain Bolt in the next lane. You know you can't win.I don't think there's anything wrong with the librarian taking the boy and his mother aside and saying that he's so much better at this than all the other children that it's discouraging them from participating. I like Timothy's idea of having him help plan the next contest, even be in charge of handing out prizes. And maybe have him declared Grand Champion Reader of the library and retire from the competition.
The last thing you want is for kids to feel like losers in reading. That makes them losers in life.
Judy wrote: "In the example of the 100 meter race, it would be like showing up at the start line and seeing Olympic champion Usain Bolt in the next lane. You know you can't win...."Yes and it's exactly like with sports where you want everyone to participate and enjoy it, whether they're brilliant or mediocre. That's why I'm really swayed by all the people who say the whole format of a contest is wrong in the first place. There are better ways. What about the challenges on Goodreads? People test themselves against goals they choose, not against each other.
I agree that holding a contest to see who can read the most books is not the best way to get kids to read. Since it's been shown the contest idea isn't working, it's time for the librarian to get creative, like letting kids choose books they like and share them with the group. Or having some kind of activity that goes with the book (like building little rafts out of popsicle sticks for Huckleberry Finn for example). I remember our library having a summer reading contest every year and I always lost interest in it by mid July. I don't even remember who won.
I live near where this happened. And people did lose their jobs over this and the ensuing national negative attention it generated.
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
Is this a case of unfair advantage? Do we place too much importance on winning? Was the librarian out of line? How could this contest (or club, as the librarian would now, after the fact, like to designate it) be more fairly managed?
http://www.today.com/books/librarian-...