professornana (professornana) wrote,

what is missing?

A tweet sent me to this announcement about a symposium on reluctant readers: I applaud the Library of Congredss for calling attention to the reluctant reader. However, there are some things missing here, some key ingredients.

Let's start with their definition of reluctant readers as kids who do not read as well as their peers do. I must admit that one took me aback. Call me naive, but I always thought of reluctant readers as just that: reluctant. So, I checked definitions of the word to be certain I had not missed some nuanced meaning of the word:

unwilling and hesitant; disinclined.
"she seemed reluctant to discuss the matter"
synonyms: unwilling, disinclined, unenthusiastic, resistant, resisting, opposed;

Nope, I was right; reluctant means unwilling and not unskilled or less able. But let's move on to who will be speaking at the symposium. Two wonderful authors are scheduled to speak. I love the books Krosczka and Pastis writer. I have read them all. Who else will be there? A psychologist and a medical doctor. Hmm. I wonder what they bring to this discussion? "Haecker will discuss the issue in a medical context, and Agard will discuss the social and academic conflicts that reluctant readers face." Again, I think I can see some reasons for including the doctor and the psychologist. But where are the librarians and the teachers? Where are the EXPERTS? This is the big missing piece.

I would expect the the Library of Congress would recognize that omitting the voices of those who work directly with reluctant readers would be a huge oversight. I guess my expectations are too great. Sigh.
Tags: oversight, reluctant readers
  • Post a new comment


    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded 

    When you submit the form an invisible reCAPTCHA check will be performed.
    You must follow the Privacy Policy and Google Terms of use.