conuly

It's part of a whole series.

http://nyti.ms/ZFs09c

It comes with pictures

http://nyti.ms/WZlPKO

and a little graph

http://nyti.ms/10tRagR

( Read more... )

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/05/education/young-latino-students-dont-see-themselves-in-books.html

This is an article basically decrying the lack of diversity in kidlit. It is apparently especially bad with regards to Hispanics. And even when books technically exist, there is no guarantee that families will easily be able to find those books. Not knowing specific titles and authors to look for (and having to ask for them to be specially ordered at the bookstore or library) can be a big barrier for any child.

Framing this article is a logical argument that runs pretty much like this:

1. Many children - and for that matter, many adults! - like to read books where they can easily identify with the protagonists.
2. Children need to practice a lot to learn a new skill. They need to read often, for long periods of time, to become fluent readers.
3. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that the lack of any real Hispanic in children's literature is a turnoff for many Hispanic children (especially those who already have trouble learning to read English, perhaps because it is not their home language), and makes them less eager to read. This, in turn, is not doing their reading skills a favor.
4. So it is important for publishers and booksellers to make a more diverse range of protagonists available to children.

This is fairly straightforward, right? I should know better than to ever glance at the comments to any article, but I confess, I'm filled with morbid curiosity regarding them.

The comments reinforced my notion that the people most likely to loudly trumpet their reading comprehension skills are the ones who most lack any such thing. From that simple proposition they widely got the impression that third grade teachers want to burn every "classic" book ever authored and not allow high schoolers to read Shakespeare. Also, it's acceptable to ask children who cannot read Spanish to any level of fluency to just wait until they are old enough to read Don Quixote in the original, because it is positively anathema to provide English language books for children that don't feature whites. (Then again, these people might just be against new publications on general principle. Few of them seem to have read any children's books published in the last half a century.) Several people commented with nostalgic approval about the good old days of whites-only Dick and Jane, those days when every child learned to read, even Johnny. If they're old enough to have learned from those basals they're presumably old enough to know better, but apparently not.

And of course, there is the ever popular rallying cry of "let's be colorblind". Advocating for a greater diversity in protagonists is racist because good books are accessible to every reader and apparently it's impossible for a good book to not prominently feature white children. Children don't see race until we teach them to, and providing books with nonwhite protagonists just teaches them to see race. Asians do well in school despite there being few books with Asian protagonists and therefore we shouldn't even consider changing a thing because the only thing that matters about kidlit is how well kids do in school, and it's insulting to suggest some children might do better if they had an easy hook. This total lack of diversity worked for ME, so it ought to be good enough for everybody. (Nevermind that a highly motivated reader is going to need less encouragement in general!) If parents care, they should just teach their children themselves (after school, natch, because homeschooling isn't the answer) and order books online. This presupposes that these parents have Internet access and time in the first place, but if you're not willing to give up your family time for this you're just an awful human being.

I tell you, sometimes it's delightful to find out what the Internet-connected public thinks. Usually it's not, but I try to amuse myself.

Edit: you know, it's the hypocrisy that gets me. These are people criticizing teachers for daring to suggest that children might like to, occasionally, read books about kids like themselves. First they say that no, kids should read about people different from them (which means that the preponderance of white characters is harmful to white kids, yes? How is this any better?) and then they inevitably rattle off a list of Good Books they think all kids should read.

Several hundred comments, and a handful of books listed. For all this talk about reading good books, to read these comments you'd think quality children's literature was limited to seven titles.

Maybe that's why they can't comprehend the concept of adding to the library. They aren't actually very well-read, at least not in this area. It's sad, it really is.

An Effort to Bury a Throwaway Culture One Repair at a Time

( Read more... )

An article on race and NYC schools

( Read more... )

One on a pretty awesome 11 year old rock climber

( Read more... )

Solar Installers Offer Deals, Gaining Converts

( Read more... )

There are more coming!

Museums are apparently doing all sorts of special programs to welcome homeschool groups

Here's a piece on Chinese language use to avoid internet censors

An article on how spring break is apparently getting less wild because all this stuff stays online forever

Here's an article on this interesting new idea of altering the pricing for more popular spots on San Francisco to increase turnover of those spots.
The article is pretty positive, but in the comments there's this critical site. I have to say, I have long thought it silly to give zillions of cars up to 2/3 of any given street, just for free!

Here's a slightly older article on a new method of cleaning up lead.

Better than Ana was at her actual age, but not quite as well as during the same part in her school career, if that makes sense.

Both of them had, at this point, a problem with guessing. But they guessed totally differently!

Ana, at this stage, would look at the first few letters and make a guess based on how they should all sound... even if it didn't make sense. So if she had a sentence that ran something like "We all live on the Earth" and she was tired by the end of it, she might read "Earth" as "earring" or "eats" or some nonsense word that sorta sounds right.

Evangeline, looking at that same sentence and being just as tired at the end of it, is much more likely to make a guess based upon the sense of the sentence. So HER guess might come out as "planet" or "world".

This has the result of making Evangeline sound like a much better reader, and the fact that she pays attention to what the words mean is very good... but in the end, I don't really want either one of them guessing at all. When they do (and they don't guess right), deep down I feel like shouting "STOP GUESSING! JUST READ IT! R E A D!"

But I try not to do that. I doubt it's helpful. I know, being able to figure things out from context is an important skill, and Ana, at least, is reading well above grade level, so why worry?

But it really annoys me. I mean, really.

Here's something else about reading, and I'm allowed to post this on the condition that none of you ever mentions it to anybody who might ever meet Evangeline, ever. You're swearing an oath by reading onwards!

When they read, they like to pretend they're characters in the books they're reading. (And to an extent they do this when watching TV too.) So if I read about how Omakayas felt bad because her sister Angeline teased her (we're reading The Birchbark House now. Good book, but it's about to get REALLY depressing), Evangeline will go "That's me, I feel bad!" or start to "cry" at the same time I'm reading because "My sister was mean to me". Evangeline especially listens very closely for any mention of HER chosen character in whatever book we're reading. (She was Diana when we read Anne of Green Gables. She still IS Diana sometimes.)