You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: The Steemit Librarian's Book Recommendations
You hit pretty much all the ones I recommend. Brian Jacques in particular is an author that I keep trying to recommend and doesn't always get that much traction (it is something of a "difficult read" for many students–and by that I mean that it's long and requires stamina).
A Series of Unfortunate Events is hands down one of the best books for youth written in recent years. It has fantastic vocabulary and never fails to hook students.
I found the length of the Redwall books to not be a problem for me at all, but I have always been a rather advanced reader. I have trouble when parents say, "My child is in 4th grade, so what books do you suggest?" My brief stint in public school in 4th grade included mockery from a fellow student for reading books that had no pictures! On the other hand, I have also seen studies that suggest low interest in reading can result from a lack of challenge coupled with being pushed to read books that are simply uninteresting.
The problem is always what the students are encouraged to read. We've established standards that go about as high as my pinky toe for reading, and then are surprised when kids view big books as "hard", even though they're not actually so difficult.
It's all cultural. Books are not that difficult, at least not on a "read and enjoy" level (the finer nuances of something like Les Miserables require life experience to understand), and we do students a disservice by giving them books based solely on their age.
Ugh. Education "standards" are a mockery of the very concept of education these days in every respect. Regurgitation of data and alignment with popular opinion seems to be the name of the game, rather than the development of sound reasoning and encouragement of the individual to excel at their various interests and talents.
The worst part, I've found, is that the emphasis from everyone involved is how people do on metrics, but the metrics are faulty and the standards for the metrics are arbitrary, so they're random thresholds built on a shoddy foundation.
90% of being successful in life is knowing how to read a book and figure out what it says, then apply it to your own life.
You don't hear about highly successful people who say that how they did on a math test has improved their life. That's not to say that math tests are wrong, but they're supposed to be part of an exercise and endeavor in building character and instilling virtuous and sophisticated self-improvement rather than a goal in and of themselves.
What does make the world better? Getting over yourself, literally, in the sense that you become a better person every day.
There's too much of an emphasis on ego and self-esteem. That may feel good in a moment, and it certainly wins friends easily (except when illusions meet reality and the lie shatters), but in reality it is the ability to efface oneself and replace oneself that matters.
Indeed. And metrics encourage schools to treat students like factory products instead of individuals who learn at different rates and have different needs and talents. "If you don't fit our mold, you are defective!" And I suspect a large number of drug prescriptions for kids are part of trying to force them to fit that bad mold.