I'm not much of a fan of readability guidelines, AR levels, Lexiles, the 5-finger rule, or any other sort of ways of corralling kids' reading. Would you want someone to tell you--at whatever age you are now--that the new Janet Evanovich book you wish to read is much too simple for you? Or perhaps you should pass on reading Proust and the Squid because it will--it's obvious, isn't it?--be too challenging for you?
In today's New York Times, film critic A.O. Scott makes what I view as a level-headed critique of the "just-right-book" approach to deciding what movies kids should be able to see. Read it and let me know what you think.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I thought I had a rather simple response to A. O. Scott's article. However, as I
wrote and thought about it, I became less and less clear about what he was saying.
When I first started thinking about this article, I agree that it's probably not
appropriate or even possible for adults to say that some books are just right for
some children. I thought about the various leveled reading programs that are so
popular in so many schools these days. In at least one of these programs, each
book is given a reading level and each child is then tested to see what level of
books they should be reading. They then read books at that level until they pass
the appropriate tests and move on to the next level. While they are not forbidden
from reading other books, other books are not counted in the books they are reading
for that program. If the child has to read 15 books in a quarter, then their is a
strong bias in the program for children to read books at their own level. In that
context, I understand what Scott is saying about wanting to allow children to read
books that are above their level and to be challenged by the book and perhaps to
struggle with the content. I think this is particularly appropriate for a child who
is reading a book about a subject about which she is passionate. I remember one
student I had who was close to being a non-reader. He liked money and weather. He
practically taught himself to read by studying these entries in the Encylopedia
Brittanica. This is an unusual case, but I do understand what the author is
saying. I think both children and most books are far too complex to be assigned a
simple reading level.
But then I realized he really wasn't talking about reading: he was talking about
movies. And he was talking about adults seeing the movie with the child and
discussing the movie afterwards. And that's where I became unclear about the
comparison he was making.
As he advocates the advantages of kids having an adult to discuss the movies they
see, is he also advocating that adults talk with their kids about the books they are
reading? He doesn't really say so, but maybe indirectly he is. Or is he comparing
kids reading a book independently with kids talking about a movie with an adult?
That's what it sounds like to me, but isn't that similar to comparing apples and
oranges?
Teachers realize that a particular book may be too challenging for most students in
the class to read alone. They also realize that same book may be appropriate for
them to read together as a class. As a class, they can discuss the difficult
concepts and vocabulary and the students can enjoy the book. I imagine that the
teachers of Scott's children was referring to the art of helping children find a
book that they will read under the covers when their father says, "Lights out."
I was torn about this article as well, Becky. I think it lends a great amount of support to the idea of expanding and redefining what is appropriate for young people but at the same time, it implied that to be worthy, the movie or book should have some sort of lesson to be discussed afterward. Specifically, I was struck by his statement about the movie Juno, in that he didn't think the film understood the seriousness of teenage pregnancy. Interestingly enough, I saw the movie with my sixteen year old sister and she thought it was not only a good movie but also a pretty effective message about birth control! She was particularly moved by the scenes in the high school hallway and the sonogram process. I didn't really think she needed the "sex talk" afterward and she said some pretty interesting things n her own. It reminded me of something Carol had mentioned in class about kids making media, or in this case, the theme of a movie, their own.
I think this is always the fine line we walk as educators and providers of books/media/stuff. How much should we interpret for kids and how much can we trust to them?
Post a Comment