From: Maia Cheli-Colando <maia>
Date: Sun, 06 Aug 2006 13:30:32 -0700

I am a reader. My children are readers and read-withers. We have a ridiculous number of books climbing the walls of house, and crawling on the floor. It delights me that my seven year old can read anything she wants to, and does.

And yet, I wonder about this thought processes behind this month's discussion. What are our reasons for wanting all children to read?

I celebrate that my kids love books because we get to share those worlds together, because they explore new places and learn so many things from the pages. It would be queer to be a writer and have your children not love books; that could feel lonely. But that doesn't make me feel that
/everyone has/ to read.

I am relieved that my kids love books because not reading skillfully is problematic for the kinds of subjects (and possibly, careers one day) that interest them. The practical end: it would be awfully hard to make your way in much of the US today, not reading.

Celebration and pragmatism. What drives us when we push reluctant but capable readers to read more than they want to? Do we feel they have to enjoy what we enjoy? Do we really believe that everyone takes glory from life in the same ways? In our house, music is as much a passion as books, and the ocean is more loved than either. Truthfully, I would be more frightened if my children didn't sing than if they didn't read, and if they didn't honor the earth, I would feel I had completely failed in my mothering hopes. But if they could read, and just didn't much... I'd know they were missing out on something I loved, and I would try to tease them through it... but would it be because I think everyone should read, or because they are /my/ children, and I want to explore those lands with them?

How do teachers approach reading in the classroom? A good teacher in a healthy environment is able to share his or her joy of stories. Human beings are generally responsive to others' enthusiasms -- so kids will pick up on positive book energy and ride with it, for a little while. But is it okay if a kid then says, okay, I can do it, and will do it sometimes, but I'd rather be out climbing trees? All in all, isn't it healthier to climb trees than to read a book? It's lovely if we do both, but if it's one or the other...? And, children's days are awfully constrained these days. (Homework in elementary school?)

At a time in history when there are so very many things we feel pressured to understand, to be competent in, is it worth taking a step back and asking if literacy and articulation in English (often in addition to a first language), strong reading skills and expository writing, "high school" math, chemistry and biology and physics, a driver's license, memorization of the American presidents and the (very theoretical) balances of power in the American government is really what we want each child to emerge into adulthood with? Are we teaching so much to so many in such crippled environments that mediocrity is the best we can gather for most?

If a child can read, and wants to build physics experiments instead in most of their "free" time, isn't that okay? Isn't doing as good as reading about doing? :)

Maia

Robin Smith wrote:
> Dear all,
> I think about this issue a lot. I ask parents to think about the seriousness of "aliteracy," having the skills of reading, but not reading. It's almost a luxurious problem, isn't it? In many parts of the world, literacy can be a luxury--being awash in books and libraries can seem like an impossible dream. Yet we have many children who can read, but choose not to. I don't have the answer, but I think a part of the problem is that reading (at least the way it is taught in some schools) is simply not fun. That's why so many of the suggested titles are humor titles. And that's why many of the books you have suggested I think of as "boy books."
Received on Sun 06 Aug 2006 03:30:32 PM CDT