![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
silveradept[It's December Days time! There's no overarching theme this year, so if you have ideas of things to write about, I'm more than happy to hear them.]
If I haven't mentioned it yet, I detest reading level systems like Accelerated Reader and Lexile, when they're not being used strictly as assessment tools. The general purpose of these systems is to assign, based on length, complexity, and density of text, a numerical score to any given work of prose. The higher the score, the more complex the text is, generally speaking. There's also a framework around the scores set so that each major division of score (single point for AR, 100 points for Lexile) roughly corresponds to what the average child of a given grade level can read. So a 3.0 AR score or a means a child entering third grade should be able to read the work without trouble. (Lexile explicitly disclaims this use, saying their system is just for classification, but providing what they consider to be the ranges of the 25th-75th percentiles for each grade level.)
As an assessment result, it's probably helpful for seeing who is reading at grade level and how far behind some percentage is. That way, those who need it can get extra instruction on reading in an attempt to bring them up to level. (Only for many of those behind to get struck by another Summer slide - enrichment and practice and books are often in short supply where they are needed most.)
One of the things that fosters enjoyment of reading and the commensurate amount of practice with text it takes to become fluent and able to read well is free choice of books. Being able to select materials according to interest, enjoyment, and format ensures that a reader has the best chance of a positive experience with books. Especially nonfiction text - interest trumps just about anything when it comes to learning facts, figures, statistics, and so forth.
There are fewer things more effective at killing someone's interest in reading than to tell them they can only read materials within a restricted range. And yet, that's what these systems are used to do in the service of reading practice when implemented poorly.
They are all implemented poorly, whether by teaching to tests that are supposed to reward comprehension, or by restricting reading, or by the very act of taking a complex child and their relationships to text and reducing it to a single number, one that can be posted for their peers to see and pass judgment on. Or for the teachers to pass judgment on.
How horrible it is that we take the act of acquiring knowledge and stories and reduce it down until we have distilled all of the fun out of it and eliminated any desire for someone to do it on their own.
If I haven't mentioned it yet, I detest reading level systems like Accelerated Reader and Lexile, when they're not being used strictly as assessment tools. The general purpose of these systems is to assign, based on length, complexity, and density of text, a numerical score to any given work of prose. The higher the score, the more complex the text is, generally speaking. There's also a framework around the scores set so that each major division of score (single point for AR, 100 points for Lexile) roughly corresponds to what the average child of a given grade level can read. So a 3.0 AR score or a means a child entering third grade should be able to read the work without trouble. (Lexile explicitly disclaims this use, saying their system is just for classification, but providing what they consider to be the ranges of the 25th-75th percentiles for each grade level.)
As an assessment result, it's probably helpful for seeing who is reading at grade level and how far behind some percentage is. That way, those who need it can get extra instruction on reading in an attempt to bring them up to level. (Only for many of those behind to get struck by another Summer slide - enrichment and practice and books are often in short supply where they are needed most.)
One of the things that fosters enjoyment of reading and the commensurate amount of practice with text it takes to become fluent and able to read well is free choice of books. Being able to select materials according to interest, enjoyment, and format ensures that a reader has the best chance of a positive experience with books. Especially nonfiction text - interest trumps just about anything when it comes to learning facts, figures, statistics, and so forth.
There are fewer things more effective at killing someone's interest in reading than to tell them they can only read materials within a restricted range. And yet, that's what these systems are used to do in the service of reading practice when implemented poorly.
They are all implemented poorly, whether by teaching to tests that are supposed to reward comprehension, or by restricting reading, or by the very act of taking a complex child and their relationships to text and reducing it to a single number, one that can be posted for their peers to see and pass judgment on. Or for the teachers to pass judgment on.
How horrible it is that we take the act of acquiring knowledge and stories and reduce it down until we have distilled all of the fun out of it and eliminated any desire for someone to do it on their own.
