Unfair Advantage

Read it and weap… reading for pleasure and a loving family reading to your kids is an “unfair advantage” for the liberal crowd.

Children who read for pleasure are likely to perform significantly better in the classroom than their peers who rarely read, according to a recent report published by the University of London’s Institute of Education.

According to a story published by the institute, its research examined the childhood reading practices of 6000 teenagers from similar social backgrounds, comparing their test results at ages five, 10 and 16 in the areas of vocabulary, spelling and maths.

The researchers concluded that children whose parents regularly read to them performed better in all three tests at age 16.

It was also determined that children who read often at 10, and more than once a week at 16, also scored higher in the same tests than those who read less often.

Lead researcher Dr Alice Sullivan reported that although vocabulary development was found to be the most affected area, the impact on spelling and maths was still significant.

“It may seem surprising that reading for pleasure would help to improve children’s maths scores, but it is likely that strong reading ability will enable children to absorb and understand new information and affect their attainment in all subjects,” Dr Sullivan said in the institute’s report. (Sydney Morning Herald)

Mother and child reading

So Liberals naturally gravitate to this being an “unfair advantage” YOU BASTARDS! :). Seriously, read on from ABC.com – Australia:

Plato famously wanted to abolish the family and put children into care of the state. Some still think the traditional family has a lot to answer for, but some plausible arguments remain in favour of it. Joe Gelonesi meets a philosopher with a rescue plan very much in tune with the times.

So many disputes in our liberal democratic society hinge on the tension between inequality and fairness: between groups, between sexes, between individuals, and increasingly between families.

The power of the family to tilt equality hasn’t gone unnoticed, and academics and public commentators have been blowing the whistle for some time. Now, philosophers Adam Swift and Harry Brighouse have felt compelled to conduct a cool reassessment.

No wonder Liberals hate the family unit so much and so much of the poor are broken family units.

Swift in particular has been conflicted for some time over the curious situation that arises when a parent wants to do the best for her child but in the process makes the playing field for others even more lopsided.

‘I got interested in this question because I was interested in equality of opportunity,’ he says.

‘I had done some work on social mobility and the evidence is overwhelmingly that the reason why children born to different families have very different chances in life is because of what happens in those families.’   

Once he got thinking, Swift could see that the issue stretches well beyond the fact that some families can afford private schooling, nannies, tutors, and houses in good suburbs. Functional family interactions—from going to the cricket to reading bedtime stories—form a largely unseen but palpable fault line between families. The consequence is a gap in social mobility and equality that can last for generations.

So, what to do?

According to Swift, from a purely instrumental position the answer is straightforward.

One way philosophers might think about solving the social justice problem would be by simply abolishing the family. If the family is this source of unfairness in society then it looks plausible to think that if we abolished the family there would be a more level playing field.’   

It’s not the first time a philosopher has thought about such a drastic solution. Two thousand four hundred years ago another sage reasoned that the care of children should be undertaken by the state.

Plato pulled few punches in The Republic when he called for the abolition of the family and for the children of the elite to be given over to the state. Aristotle didn’t agree, citing the since oft-used argument of the neglect of things held in common. Swift echoes the Aristotelian line. The break-up of the family is plausible maybe, he thinks, but even to the most hard-hearted there’s something off-key about it.

‘Nearly everyone who has thought about this would conclude that it is a really bad idea to be raised by state institutions, unless something has gone wrong,’ he says.

Intuitively it doesn’t feel right, but for a philosopher, solutions require more than an initial reaction. So Swift and his college Brighouse set to work on a respectable analytical defence of the family, asking themselves the deceptively simple question: ‘Why are families a good thing exactly?’

Not surprisingly, it begins with kids and ends with parents.

‘It’s the children’s interest in family life that is the most important,’ says Swift. ‘From all we now know, it is in the child’s interest to be parented, and to be parented well. Meanwhile, from the adult point of view it looks as if there is something very valuable in being a parent.’

He concedes parenting might not be for everyone and for some it can go badly wrong, but in general it is an irreplaceable relationship.

‘Parenting a child makes for what we call a distinctive and special contribution to the flourishing and wellbeing of adults.’

It seems that from both the child’s and adult’s point of view there is something to be said about living in a family way. This doesn’t exactly parry the criticism that families exacerbate social inequality. For this, Swift and Brighouse needed to sort out those activities that contribute to unnecessary inequality from those that don’t.

‘What we realised we needed was a way of thinking about what it was we wanted to allow parents to do for their children, and what it was that we didn’t need to allow parents to do for their children, if allowing those activities would create unfairnesses for other people’s children’.

The test they devised was based on what they term ‘familial relationship goods’; those unique and identifiable things that arise within the family unit and contribute to the flourishing of family members.  

For Swift, there’s one particular choice that fails the test.

‘Private schooling cannot be justified by appeal to these familial relationship goods,’ he says. ‘It’s just not the case that in order for a family to realise these intimate, loving, authoritative, affectionate, love-based relationships you need to be able to send your child to an elite private school.’

In contrast, reading stories at bedtime, argues Swift, gives rise to acceptable familial relationship goods, even though this also bestows advantage.

‘The evidence shows that the difference between those who get bedtime stories and those who don’t—the difference in their life chances—is bigger than the difference between those who get elite private schooling and those that don’t,’ he says.

This devilish twist of evidence surely leads to a further conclusion—that perhaps in the interests of levelling the playing field, bedtime stories should also be restricted. In Swift’s mind this is where the evaluation of familial relationship goods goes up a notch.

‘You have to allow parents to engage in bedtime stories activities, in fact we encourage them because those are the kinds of interactions between parents and children that do indeed foster and produce these [desired] familial relationship goods.’

Swift makes it clear that although both elite schooling and bedtime stories might both skew the family game, restricting the former would not interfere with the creation of the special loving bond that families give rise to. Taking the books away is another story.

‘We could prevent elite private schooling without any real hit to healthy family relationships, whereas if we say that you can’t read bedtime stories to your kids because it’s not fair that some kids get them and others don’t, then that would be too big a hit at the core of family life.’

So should parents snuggling up for one last story before lights out be even a little concerned about the advantage they might be conferring?

‘I don’t think parents reading their children bedtime stories should constantly have in their minds the way that they are unfairly disadvantaging other people’s children, but I think they should have that thought occasionally,’ quips Swift.

In the end Swift agrees that all activities will cause some sort of imbalance—from joining faith communities to playing Saturday cricket—and it’s for this reason that a theory of familial goods needs to be established if the family is to be defended against cries of unfairness. 

‘We should accept that lots of stuff that goes on in healthy families—and that our theory defends—will confer unfair advantage,’ he says.

It’s the usual bind in ethics and moral philosophy: very often values clash and you have to make a call. For Swift and Brighouse, the line sits shy of private schooling, inheritance and other predominantly economic ways of conferring advantage.

Their conclusions remind one of a more idyllic (or mythic) age for families: reading together, attending religious services, playing board games, and kicking a ball in the local park, not to mention enjoying roast dinner on Sunday. It conjures a family setting worthy of a classic Norman Rockwell painting. But not so fast: when you ask Swift what sort of families is he talking about, the ‘50s reverie comes crashing down into the 21st century.

‘When we talk about parents’ rights, we’re talking about the person who is parenting the child. How you got to be parenting the child is another issue. One implication of our theory is that it’s not one’s biological relation that does much work in justifying your rights with respect to how the child is parented.’

For Swift and Brighouse, our society is curiously stuck in a time warp of proprietorial rights: if you biologically produce a child you own it.

‘We think that although in practice it makes sense to parent your biological offspring, that is not the same as saying that in virtue of having produced the child the biological parent has the right to parent.’

Then, does the child have a right to be parented by her biological parents? Swift has a ready answer.

‘It’s true that in the societies in which we live, biological origins do tend to form an important part of people’s identities, but that is largely a social and cultural construction. So you could imagine societies in which the parent-child relationship could go really well even without there being this biological link.’

From this realisation arises another twist: two is not the only number.

‘Nothing in our theory assumes two parents: there might be two, there might be three, and there might be four,’ says Swift.

It’s here that the traditional notions of what constitutes the family come apart. A necessary product of the Swift and Brighouse analytical defence is the calling into question of some rigid definitions.

‘Politicians love to talk about family values, but meanwhile the family is in flux and so we wanted to go back to philosophical basics to work out what are families for and what’s so great about them and then we can start to figure out whether it matters whether you have two parents or three or one, or whether they’re heterosexual etcetera.’

For traditionalists, though, Swift provides a small concession.

‘We do want to defend the family against complete fragmentation and dissolution,’ he says. ‘If you start to think about a child having 10 parents, then that’s looking like a committee rearing a child; there aren’t any parents there at all.’

Although it’s controversial, it seems that Swift and Brighouse are philosophically inching their way to a novel accommodation for a weathered institution ever more in need of a rationale for existing. The bathwater might be going out, but they’re keen to hold on to the baby.

Back to SMH:

The study also concluded that reading for pleasure was a more important factor in children’s cognitive development between the ages of 10 and 16 than their parents’ level of education.

“The combined effect on children’s progress of reading books often, going to the library regularly and reading newspapers at 16, was four times greater than the advantage children gained from having a parent with a degree,” Ms Padgham says.

Children who read often for pleasure are exposed to more complex language structures and vocabulary than they are exposed to in oral situations alone, she says. “This building of a rich language and vocabulary from books from an early age is crucial to reading development,” she says.

Teacher librarian Olivia Neilson has noted that young children appear to have a natural enthusiasm for reading and borrowing books. “As students move up the grades and become more independent readers, they usually voraciously devour whatever they can get their hands on, as they enjoy the feeling of reading to themselves.”

Encouragement is crucial, however, particularly for reluctant readers. Ms Neilson says reading aloud from a variety of authors and genres, and offering children a range of reading materials including magazines and graphic novels, is critical in helping to meet their reading interests.

She explains that to support children in finding the success and positive self-esteem that reading can set them up for, we need to live what we teach.

“As parents, teachers and the whole community, we have a job to demonstrate to young people that reading has value for them personally. Lectures and speeches about that won’t do it for them, but modelling slow reading of great books and articles will.”

So the best option for Liberals is to make people not want to read and expose themselves and to produce an “unfair advantage” and self-esteem that is not conferred UPON them by ht liberals.

Keep ’em stupid. Keep them fragmented. Keep them Liberal. 🙂

As Rush Limbaugh concluded: “As liberals, the answer is not to help the kids who are not in good families. They become the lowest-common denominator. They become the baseline. Everybody must be made to be like them in order for everything to be fair and equal. The natural tendency of the left is to punish success, to punish achievement, to punish anything that they believe gives an unfair advantage.”

Political Cartoons by Michael Ramirez
Political Cartoons by Glenn McCoy
Political Cartoons by Ken Catalino

Reading is Fundamental

Librarian Fired for Actually Getting Kid to Read

A library aide has been fired for successfully doing her most basic job — getting a kid to read more. And so, too, has the library’s director, who started the reading controversy in the first place.

Lita Casey was dismissed on Monday after working for 28 years at the Hudson Falls Free Library in upstate New York. Her offense? Defending a nine-year-old child whose voracious reading appetite and abundant (and free!) library books makes him read too much. So much, in fact, that Weaver dominates the library’s annual reading competition, having won his 5th straight reading title by absorbing 63 books in the 40 day competition.

That should be good news, right?

Not in the eyes of library director Marie Gandron, who said the soon-to-be fifth grader Tyler Weaver “hogs” the contest with his no-good-dirty-rotten-book-stealing reading habits. Gandron had hoped to change the structure of prizes awarded in the contest to encourage other kids to get involved in the reading contest, as “Other kids quit because they can’t keep up,” Gandron said. Instead, Gandron wanted to award prizes for the reading “contest” by picking names out of a hat. Why that would actually encourage reading, we can’t say. It’s not as if those prizes were the main reason Weaver — the self-described “the king of the reading club” — was picking up those books in the first place. All little Weaver has won in his five year reign is an atlas, a T-shirt, a water bottle and certificates of achievement. That’s nothing special.

Casey stood up for this injustice back in late August, calling the idea of changing the prizes “ridiculous.” Well, she has since paid the price for standing up for her beliefs. “I could not believe it, and I still cannot believe it,” she said after she heard she had been let go in a phone conversation. Gandron, too, has paid the same price herself, as she was also fired from her job last week after 41 years at the library.

With two of the library’s six employees gone over a dumb controversy, it’s hard to find much of a winner in this story. That is, except for our friend Weaver. If only these librarians had put down the books and watched some of The Wire, they would have known a good life lesson: You come at the (reading) king, you best not miss. (Atlantic Wire)

“I could not believe it, and I still cannot believe it,” Casey said Tuesday.

She said she was called by board member Michael Mercure, who is a lawyer and the Washington County public defender.

“I asked why I was being terminated, and I was told the board would not give a reason. I asked if I could come down and talk to the board. He went away for a minute, came back and said no.

Yeah, don’t ask a high and mighty government official, your Lord & Master, to explain themselves! That’s tantamount to insurrection!

Just Ask Hillary Clinton, Susan Rice and Eric Holder…

So naturally, when the whole tempest in a teapot explodes in the Liberals face it’s time to “put it behind us and move on” response.

After all, “What difference does it make??”

Let’s not dwell on our mistakes (we obsessed on other peoples).

The Good News from Hudson Falls Free Library: Kids Are Reading!

Let’s Turn the Page on Unfortunate Controversy

Statement from:

Michael Herman

President

Hudson Falls Free Library Board of Trustees

August 21, 2013

For more than four decades, the goal of Hudson Falls Free Library’s summer reading program has been to encourage and inspire children toward a lifelong love of reading — and we have been immensely successful.

This year, 30 children read 10 or more books over their summer vacation. That’s the good story we should be sharing and celebrating, and we’re sorry that some unfortunate comments have overshadowed the accomplishments of Tyler Weaver and all of the participants in our program.

Tyler has achieved an impressive record of reading the most books in our program for five years in a row, and deserves our applause for that. In an era where technology too often keeps children’s noses pointed at text messages and video games, Tyler and the other “Dig into Reading” kids have embraced the wonderful world of books, and for that they should all be proud.

Looking forward, the Library Board and staff will be reviewing the way in which our program works to ensure that it continues to meet its goal of encouraging as many children as possible to spend time reading over the summer.

We thank Tyler and all of our young friends of Hudson Falls Free Library for sharing their love of reading with us, and we look forward to reading and learning with them for many years to come.

I was “unfortunate” and let’s put on a happy face and just move on. Nothing to see here.

Like Liberal Government incompetence.

Just like Benghazi.

And after that response I think my saccharine intake for to next 10 years has been filled.

Comment field by “common man”:

What a perfect example of a failed effort to promote meritocracy over excellence. Much like not keeping score for youth sports and giving everyone a trophy, efforts to level the playing field to avoid hurting the feelings of those less talented or uncompetitive only teaches our children that life should be “fair”. To create an atmosphere where what is utmost important feeling good about yourself regardless of one’s efforts to achieve excellence only sets up a child for a life of disappointment. Life is not “fair”, not everyone has the same ability to be the best. Hard work is rewarded and laziness will only get you the bottom slot in life.
“Heroes rise above the mediocrity that surrounds them”

BRAVO.

But if this were the Obama Administration we just have to wait 8 months and the Library Manager will have a new job as the assistant/advisor to the head of Board, just like Susan Rice. 🙂

Political Cartoons by Lisa Benson

Political Cartoons by Steve Kelley

Political Cartoons by Glenn McCoy