There are fewer and fewer reviews of books in magazines and newspapers. In fact, on many newspaper websites, if you click on the navigation button marked "Entertainment" there is no subsequent section for "books." Oh, sure, there are reviews of music, movies, TV shows, restaurants and gadgets, but you often can't find anything about good ol' books. I'm afraid that throughout the popular culture books have slipped into an unseemly "also ran" category.
In relation to this decline, I've been thinking about books, authors and celebrities. This country has a few celebrity authors. A few. We could really use more. Perhaps there are so few because authors tend to be bookish, quiet types who spend their days with their noses in either a book or a keyboard—and they have that look about them. But not all authors. Some are sharp dressers, articulate, interesting. And authors used to be considered celebrities in this country, even when I was a kid I remember authors appearing on daytime talk shows and on The Tonight Show with Johnny Carson. But do enough people care about books for the media to pay attention to authors? I don't think the media thinks so.
Publishers have figured out that it's easier to pluck a celebrity off the pages of People magazine and have them pen a book, than to turn an author into a celebrity—after all, the hard part about becoming famous has already been done! Anybody read Pamela Anderson's latest novel? Sadly, the book itself has become an afterthought, the media attention is what's really important. Rightly or wrongly, the technique works and publishers, after all, are in the business of moving books, and if celebrities move books, they're good for business. We live in a celebrity culture, not a book culture.
At one of my book signings, an earnest woman told me she LOVED children's books. She then proceeded to tell me without a hint of irony that she had "all of Madonna's books." Good for her.
But there are things that work to bring attention to books. These things should be studied carefully, because they make books relevant again. Oprah's Book Club is a force for literacy, no argument there. Many women belong to social book clubs, which I'm sure account for millions of book sales a year. Movies based on books also help spur interest in the original source material. And things like the National Book Festival held every year in Washington, D.C. are great ways to celebrate books and make authors celebrities once again.
The point is, there are things that can be done to champion books and reading in the media and in the culture at large. Maybe we just need a task force to study these issues and work up a list of proposals, initiatives and plans. Then the question becomes: what celebrity can we get to head up such a committee?
Monday, October 13, 2008
Monday, September 1, 2008
Freakonomics and Reading Incentives
What incentive do kids have to read books?
Seriously.
Why read a book these days when you can watch a just-downloaded movie on your iPod? Or fire up a game of Super Monkey Ball on your iPhone? Or plop down on the LA-Z-Boy and watch the latest installment of "Dancing with the Stars?"
How do you get kids to pass up these easier, more enticing, and less mind-taxing options?
I just finished Freakonomics: A Rogue Economist Explores the Hidden Side of Everything by Steven D. Levitt and Stephen J. Dubner. The authors explain that "economics is, at root, the study of incentives" and that "the typical economist believes the world has not yet invented a problem that he cannot fix if given a free hand to design the proper incentive scheme."
As my mind is want to do, I start thinking about all this economics/incentive stuff and how it relates to getting kids to read more. The authors deftly explain that incentives come in three types: economic, moral, and social. Turn the knobs on these three types of incentives, they argue, and the economist believes that he can find the right combination to make folks do just about anything.
So how about kids and reading? Hmmmm.
Economic incentives might work: If Tiffany reads three books she gets $30, or $300, or $3,000. That could get expensive, but you could probably reach a number where Tiffany simply couldn't resist, at least until she got sufficiently rich on your unwise and costly incentive program.
Moral incentives might work: Little Kevin might read if society as a whole looked down upon kids who eschewed the book and chewed on the idiot box. What if a family felt shamed by a child who never cracked open a book? But moral incentives don't seem possible in this case, especially when the society as a whole prefers to collectively drool at the feet of "Deal of No Deal." Just not gonna happen.
Social pressure would work: This is the one knob I would suggest turning. Right now, kids who read a lot are made fun of, are teased, or called book geeks/nerds/pinheads, etc. That knob would have to be cranked back 180 degrees the other way. To me, this seems do-able. I'm not exactly sure how, but if kids by and large treated things like the latest Percy Jackson book as the must-have accessory for the Fall Season, books would be back in favor. But what's the plan? How do you make that happen? I haven't seen the show "Are You Smarter Than a Fifth Grader?" but that might be a place to start—sadly, it's another ding-dang TV show!
I'll think on it. Let me know if you come up with anything—of course not until after "Deal or No Deal."
Seriously.
Why read a book these days when you can watch a just-downloaded movie on your iPod? Or fire up a game of Super Monkey Ball on your iPhone? Or plop down on the LA-Z-Boy and watch the latest installment of "Dancing with the Stars?"
How do you get kids to pass up these easier, more enticing, and less mind-taxing options?
I just finished Freakonomics: A Rogue Economist Explores the Hidden Side of Everything by Steven D. Levitt and Stephen J. Dubner. The authors explain that "economics is, at root, the study of incentives" and that "the typical economist believes the world has not yet invented a problem that he cannot fix if given a free hand to design the proper incentive scheme."
As my mind is want to do, I start thinking about all this economics/incentive stuff and how it relates to getting kids to read more. The authors deftly explain that incentives come in three types: economic, moral, and social. Turn the knobs on these three types of incentives, they argue, and the economist believes that he can find the right combination to make folks do just about anything.
So how about kids and reading? Hmmmm.
Economic incentives might work: If Tiffany reads three books she gets $30, or $300, or $3,000. That could get expensive, but you could probably reach a number where Tiffany simply couldn't resist, at least until she got sufficiently rich on your unwise and costly incentive program.
Moral incentives might work: Little Kevin might read if society as a whole looked down upon kids who eschewed the book and chewed on the idiot box. What if a family felt shamed by a child who never cracked open a book? But moral incentives don't seem possible in this case, especially when the society as a whole prefers to collectively drool at the feet of "Deal of No Deal." Just not gonna happen.
Social pressure would work: This is the one knob I would suggest turning. Right now, kids who read a lot are made fun of, are teased, or called book geeks/nerds/pinheads, etc. That knob would have to be cranked back 180 degrees the other way. To me, this seems do-able. I'm not exactly sure how, but if kids by and large treated things like the latest Percy Jackson book as the must-have accessory for the Fall Season, books would be back in favor. But what's the plan? How do you make that happen? I haven't seen the show "Are You Smarter Than a Fifth Grader?" but that might be a place to start—sadly, it's another ding-dang TV show!
I'll think on it. Let me know if you come up with anything—of course not until after "Deal or No Deal."
Sunday, August 24, 2008
Why everyone hates "required summer reading"
Today is our last day of summer. The kids start school tomorrow. Whew! It was a lovely summer, to be sure, but as of late the hot topic of conversation on the normally upbeat BBQ circuit is that "stupid, cursed book for required summer reading." All the hair pulling, snarling, and gnashing of teeth has caught my attention...and got me thinking.
Even for my older daughter (who read about 25 books this summer—an avid reader to be sure), it's torture. She is like a horseless stagecoach mired in cold oatmeal when it comes to the required summer reading book and project. Honestly, I think she'd rather move to a new town, assume a new identity, and just read "the books she wants to read."
Why is summer reading required when everyone I've ever met despises the concept? Let's face it, everyone hates required summer reading. Everybody. (If you know someone who likes it, please point them out to me, and I'll assign them a book that they don't want to read for the next time they go on vacation!)
Who invented this idea? Who decided that it was a good idea for school to spoil that sanctity and serenity of summer vacation? After all, what is the ultimate goal of this cruel and unusual punishment? Does it actually achieve anything? Yes? Than show me the study that shows that it is really useful. Where's the research? Where's the proof? Where's the beef?
Teachers have told us that if they do not assign a book and project during the summer, most kids will not read a book at all. And what, is the required summer reading book supposed to engender some kind of love of literature? Ha! Or is it supposed to keep their reading skills sharp? Ha! In fact, studies I've seen show that reading one book over the summer does nothing in terms of maintaining reading skills.
Often "required summer reading" consists of just one book, sometimes picked from a list of 5 or 6 age-appropriate titles that the teacher has deemed worthy, instructive in some way, and certainly "good literature." Then why does everyone put it off until the last moment, under punishment of no texting/email/internet/video games/TV/friends/food/oxygen—whatever the threat required may be to get Jimmy or Jilly to read that godforsaken tome?
Hey, why don't we just assign a book? Any book. Of the child's chosing! Some kids like humor books. Others like biographies about people that interest them. Others would like to read about American Civil War battles. But these kinds of books are usually not offered. This change would at least make the practice less torturous. I mean, c'mon, hasn't anyone ever thrust a book at you and said "you gotta read this," but you didn't because it just didn't capture your interest? That's "required summer reading" in a nutshell.
I think the practice just builds up resentment in kids for books. The ultimate goal may be a worthy one, but in practice it's a big, fat backfire. A dud. A failure that needs to be put to rest or overhauled in some way.
So I'll go on record: Required summer reading is not only ineffective, it's worthless, resented, irritating, and an invasion of privacy into what was once the carefree joy and freedom of SUMMER VACATION.
If we really want kids to read over the summer vacation, we can come up with something better. No?
Even for my older daughter (who read about 25 books this summer—an avid reader to be sure), it's torture. She is like a horseless stagecoach mired in cold oatmeal when it comes to the required summer reading book and project. Honestly, I think she'd rather move to a new town, assume a new identity, and just read "the books she wants to read."
Why is summer reading required when everyone I've ever met despises the concept? Let's face it, everyone hates required summer reading. Everybody. (If you know someone who likes it, please point them out to me, and I'll assign them a book that they don't want to read for the next time they go on vacation!)
Who invented this idea? Who decided that it was a good idea for school to spoil that sanctity and serenity of summer vacation? After all, what is the ultimate goal of this cruel and unusual punishment? Does it actually achieve anything? Yes? Than show me the study that shows that it is really useful. Where's the research? Where's the proof? Where's the beef?
Teachers have told us that if they do not assign a book and project during the summer, most kids will not read a book at all. And what, is the required summer reading book supposed to engender some kind of love of literature? Ha! Or is it supposed to keep their reading skills sharp? Ha! In fact, studies I've seen show that reading one book over the summer does nothing in terms of maintaining reading skills.
Often "required summer reading" consists of just one book, sometimes picked from a list of 5 or 6 age-appropriate titles that the teacher has deemed worthy, instructive in some way, and certainly "good literature." Then why does everyone put it off until the last moment, under punishment of no texting/email/internet/video games/TV/friends/food/oxygen—whatever the threat required may be to get Jimmy or Jilly to read that godforsaken tome?
Hey, why don't we just assign a book? Any book. Of the child's chosing! Some kids like humor books. Others like biographies about people that interest them. Others would like to read about American Civil War battles. But these kinds of books are usually not offered. This change would at least make the practice less torturous. I mean, c'mon, hasn't anyone ever thrust a book at you and said "you gotta read this," but you didn't because it just didn't capture your interest? That's "required summer reading" in a nutshell.
I think the practice just builds up resentment in kids for books. The ultimate goal may be a worthy one, but in practice it's a big, fat backfire. A dud. A failure that needs to be put to rest or overhauled in some way.
So I'll go on record: Required summer reading is not only ineffective, it's worthless, resented, irritating, and an invasion of privacy into what was once the carefree joy and freedom of SUMMER VACATION.
If we really want kids to read over the summer vacation, we can come up with something better. No?
Friday, July 11, 2008
Fighting Summer Reading Loss
I was asking one of my daughter's friends the other night how many books she had read so far this summer. "None," she stated simply, as if this were the only logical course of action after a stressful, intense, homework-packed school year.
You can't really blame her.
But that got me to thinking about something that's often called summer reading loss. Basically, it's like kids' brains melt a bit over the hot summer months when they don't read. You see, by not reading books over the summer a child's reading ability and achievement actually goes backwards. It regresses. I've seen figures that say reading achievement typically declines on average by three months during the hot, lazy months of June, July and August if kids don't read. Most troubling, research indicates that summer reading loss hits lower income, at-risk kids the most, and the effects are cumulative. And the kids most impacted are those students in K-3rd, but summer reading loss can rob kids of critical reading progress all the way through middle school.
So what to be done about it? First, read this good article titled "Bridging the Summer Reading Gap," written by Anne McGill-Franzen and Richard Allington. Next, dig into the research about summer reading programs by starting with this excellent and informative research summary. Then read this primer on the issue from RIF's website. Check out those three things and you'll know more about this issue than 99% of people.
Here a few key tips I gleaned while going through all this information:
• You don't have to read A LOT of books: Just five or six books can maintain reading levels over the summer.
• Do not push books on kids that are too tough: Summer reading should be a time to enjoy reading. Struggling through something too difficult defeats the purpose. Kids would rather pick at a scab then machete their way through the complex, confusing and dull.
• Let kids self-select their books: Don't make your son read Little Women or The Red Badge of Courage because they're classics. Let your daughter select books with subjects, themes and styles that interest her. She can read a series about ponies or cave exploring adventurers, while he reads books about dinosaur poop or medieval combat. Just butt out!
• It doesn't matter what they're reading, as long as they're reading: Do not roll your eyes at comic novels. Do not scoff at Captain Underpants. And don't you dare groan when a child approaches waving a Joe Sherlock mystery!
• Sign up kids for summer reading programs at the library and get them there: Kids can't drive. Adults need to get kids to where the books are. Where there are no books, there is no reading.
• Keep track of progress by making a list: Slap a list of completed books onto the fridge with a magnet. Write down each book knocked off. Show the list to EVERYBODY who comes by. Send a copy to Grandma. Bring the list to your knitting group. Or show it to the guys you play golf with. Get involved. Your child's eyes will shine with pride. Trust me. Perhaps you might even slap your own list on that fridge? Have fun. Be creative. Show that it is your #1 Summer Priority and it'll get done.
Happy Summer Reading!
You can't really blame her.
But that got me to thinking about something that's often called summer reading loss. Basically, it's like kids' brains melt a bit over the hot summer months when they don't read. You see, by not reading books over the summer a child's reading ability and achievement actually goes backwards. It regresses. I've seen figures that say reading achievement typically declines on average by three months during the hot, lazy months of June, July and August if kids don't read. Most troubling, research indicates that summer reading loss hits lower income, at-risk kids the most, and the effects are cumulative. And the kids most impacted are those students in K-3rd, but summer reading loss can rob kids of critical reading progress all the way through middle school.
So what to be done about it? First, read this good article titled "Bridging the Summer Reading Gap," written by Anne McGill-Franzen and Richard Allington. Next, dig into the research about summer reading programs by starting with this excellent and informative research summary. Then read this primer on the issue from RIF's website. Check out those three things and you'll know more about this issue than 99% of people.
Here a few key tips I gleaned while going through all this information:
• You don't have to read A LOT of books: Just five or six books can maintain reading levels over the summer.
• Do not push books on kids that are too tough: Summer reading should be a time to enjoy reading. Struggling through something too difficult defeats the purpose. Kids would rather pick at a scab then machete their way through the complex, confusing and dull.
• Let kids self-select their books: Don't make your son read Little Women or The Red Badge of Courage because they're classics. Let your daughter select books with subjects, themes and styles that interest her. She can read a series about ponies or cave exploring adventurers, while he reads books about dinosaur poop or medieval combat. Just butt out!
• It doesn't matter what they're reading, as long as they're reading: Do not roll your eyes at comic novels. Do not scoff at Captain Underpants. And don't you dare groan when a child approaches waving a Joe Sherlock mystery!
• Sign up kids for summer reading programs at the library and get them there: Kids can't drive. Adults need to get kids to where the books are. Where there are no books, there is no reading.
• Keep track of progress by making a list: Slap a list of completed books onto the fridge with a magnet. Write down each book knocked off. Show the list to EVERYBODY who comes by. Send a copy to Grandma. Bring the list to your knitting group. Or show it to the guys you play golf with. Get involved. Your child's eyes will shine with pride. Trust me. Perhaps you might even slap your own list on that fridge? Have fun. Be creative. Show that it is your #1 Summer Priority and it'll get done.
Happy Summer Reading!
Monday, June 30, 2008
Screen Time vs. Make Believe
When I was a kid I spent a lot of time "pretend playing." Of course, we didn't call it that. We called it "cowboys and indians," or "cops and robbers," or "an alien just ate my little brother." The point being: we used our imaginations quite a bit during play.
If you've read this blog before, you know that one of the subjects I like to touch upon (nay, hammer upon!) is how "electronic media" or "screen time" is crowding out "book time." But it also crowds out "pretend time." Do kids spend the same amount of time pretending today as they did in the 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s or even 90s? There must be something different about pretending to be a dusty town's sheriff trying to run off a ornery gunslinger, than playing a video game in which you blast your way through the OK Corral.
I'm a writer. Without my robust imagination, I might have been forced to become a lawyer. Or, a doctor. Or a politician. (I think I just got really snarky right there—and for that I am truly sorry.) But I'm not one of those people in your neighborhood; I make up stories. Will this generation of screen monkeys have the same kind of imaginations as previous generations? Could TVs, cell phones, computers, iPods, video games, hand-held gaming devices and DVD players installed into car headrests be robbing our short ones of a future bolstered by an active, rigorous and productive imagination? It's something worth thinking about—if you still have the imagination to do such mental hijinks.
These questions about pretend play started firing off in my head like a lost cap gun after reading an interesting interview with Susan Linn about her new book "The Case For Make Believe" in the USA Today. You can read it here.
If kids no longer cram bath towels into the necks of their pajamas—for the perfect poor man's cape—and run careening through the house as a superhero with certain incredible but mysterious powers, what will become of us in the long run? Just use your imagination.
If you've read this blog before, you know that one of the subjects I like to touch upon (nay, hammer upon!) is how "electronic media" or "screen time" is crowding out "book time." But it also crowds out "pretend time." Do kids spend the same amount of time pretending today as they did in the 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s or even 90s? There must be something different about pretending to be a dusty town's sheriff trying to run off a ornery gunslinger, than playing a video game in which you blast your way through the OK Corral.
I'm a writer. Without my robust imagination, I might have been forced to become a lawyer. Or, a doctor. Or a politician. (I think I just got really snarky right there—and for that I am truly sorry.) But I'm not one of those people in your neighborhood; I make up stories. Will this generation of screen monkeys have the same kind of imaginations as previous generations? Could TVs, cell phones, computers, iPods, video games, hand-held gaming devices and DVD players installed into car headrests be robbing our short ones of a future bolstered by an active, rigorous and productive imagination? It's something worth thinking about—if you still have the imagination to do such mental hijinks.
These questions about pretend play started firing off in my head like a lost cap gun after reading an interesting interview with Susan Linn about her new book "The Case For Make Believe" in the USA Today. You can read it here.
If kids no longer cram bath towels into the necks of their pajamas—for the perfect poor man's cape—and run careening through the house as a superhero with certain incredible but mysterious powers, what will become of us in the long run? Just use your imagination.
Tuesday, June 24, 2008
Is the Internet Making Us Stupid?
My family always spent a week in Lake Tahoe in the summer, usually in August. During these vacations, my oldest brother would occasionally become so absorbed in a book that he would sit completely still for hours simply reading, without moving, save for the sudden, violent arm convulsion that was required to turn the page. No bathroom breaks. No idle chitchat. No chips and dip. He was busy burrowing through a few hundred pages like a book mole, unwilling to stop until his bladder burst or someone threw him in the pool—or both. We called this marathon reading "nerd factor," as in, "he's got some good nerd factor going on."
And my dad would sometimes fall victim to this deep, almost hypnotic state of reading. After making Super Scrams for breakfast, he would leave the wreckage of the kitchen in his wake and idly pick up a James Michener tome as fat as my head. Invariably, he'd be "lost at sea" for the day, simply unable or unwilling to drop the thing with a thud and participate in vacation. It was like the idea of a bookmark had never even occurred to him, and the mere suggestion of one would elicit a look of sheer incomprehension or outright disgust. He would not stop reading until he reached the end, by George! End of story. As my mom would aptly put it, he had been "sucked in." There was no amount of begging or pleading to go to the pool, play a round of miniature golf, or invest in an outing of horseback riding that could get him to stop. "Nerd factor, warp speed ahead, Scotty!"
My daughters also have this "nerd factor" ability; they can sit for hours plowing through a book till it's history, thank you very much! Not me. I get distracted half way through that tiny slip of paper that comes out of a fortune cookie. I get bored while reading street signs. Truth be told, I've become a big advocate of haikus, bullet points and communicating through body language alone. What gives? (Keep reading! I'm getting to the point, you with the attention span of a Drosophila fly!)
One of my brothers mentioned something about this to me the other day. He's having trouble concentrating, finding a book he felt enthusiastic about finishing. That got me thinking: How has our fast-paced, Tivo-fueled, Internet-surfing world impacted our ability to enjoy a James Michener novel that Paul Bunyan could use as a footstool? Has the Internet spoiled our ability to enjoy a good book?
Then I ran across this fantastic article from The Atlantic magazine by Nicholas Carr entitled "Is Google Making Us Stupid?" In it, Carr discusses the impact of Internet browsing/reading has had on our ability to engage in and enjoy deep reading. In essence, he posits that our flitting around the net all day gathering gossipy tidbits, sound bites, and snippets of news and infotainment has impacted our ability to "read." It's as if the Internet itself—with it's fast-paced, get-it-in-a-second nature—has reprogrammed our minds at a biological level, influencing the way we actually think and process information. It's cogent, trenchant, keenly written and, I swear, not too long. You should take the time to read it here. It'll leave you itching for a thick brick of Michener.
And my dad would sometimes fall victim to this deep, almost hypnotic state of reading. After making Super Scrams for breakfast, he would leave the wreckage of the kitchen in his wake and idly pick up a James Michener tome as fat as my head. Invariably, he'd be "lost at sea" for the day, simply unable or unwilling to drop the thing with a thud and participate in vacation. It was like the idea of a bookmark had never even occurred to him, and the mere suggestion of one would elicit a look of sheer incomprehension or outright disgust. He would not stop reading until he reached the end, by George! End of story. As my mom would aptly put it, he had been "sucked in." There was no amount of begging or pleading to go to the pool, play a round of miniature golf, or invest in an outing of horseback riding that could get him to stop. "Nerd factor, warp speed ahead, Scotty!"
My daughters also have this "nerd factor" ability; they can sit for hours plowing through a book till it's history, thank you very much! Not me. I get distracted half way through that tiny slip of paper that comes out of a fortune cookie. I get bored while reading street signs. Truth be told, I've become a big advocate of haikus, bullet points and communicating through body language alone. What gives? (Keep reading! I'm getting to the point, you with the attention span of a Drosophila fly!)
One of my brothers mentioned something about this to me the other day. He's having trouble concentrating, finding a book he felt enthusiastic about finishing. That got me thinking: How has our fast-paced, Tivo-fueled, Internet-surfing world impacted our ability to enjoy a James Michener novel that Paul Bunyan could use as a footstool? Has the Internet spoiled our ability to enjoy a good book?
Then I ran across this fantastic article from The Atlantic magazine by Nicholas Carr entitled "Is Google Making Us Stupid?" In it, Carr discusses the impact of Internet browsing/reading has had on our ability to engage in and enjoy deep reading. In essence, he posits that our flitting around the net all day gathering gossipy tidbits, sound bites, and snippets of news and infotainment has impacted our ability to "read." It's as if the Internet itself—with it's fast-paced, get-it-in-a-second nature—has reprogrammed our minds at a biological level, influencing the way we actually think and process information. It's cogent, trenchant, keenly written and, I swear, not too long. You should take the time to read it here. It'll leave you itching for a thick brick of Michener.
Wednesday, June 18, 2008
What Kids Say About Not Reading
Kids are reading much less today than they did 20 years ago, according to a recent study by Scholastic. Oops! My bad! I know, I should have warned you, or at least told you to sit down first, instead of just hitting you in the face with that cream pie of shocking news right off the bat. Mea culpa.
I read an article in USA Today about the Scholastic study and noticed something interesting: the kids don't mention TV by name as what they do instead of reading. In the survey of kids from 5 to 17 (too wide of a range to lump together in my opinion), 31% say they don't read because they would rather do other things. Like what? Huh, kids? TV perhaps? Why can't they just spill the beans?
That got me thinking: Is there still shame associated with nestling in on the couch and systematically inhaling a foot-long tube of vacuum-packed Chili Cheese Pringles while watching five staight hours of soul-sucking reality TV? If there is still some degree of ignominy associated with slack-jawed drooling at the base of a 65" hi-def plasma, that's a good thing! Hurray for the good guys! There's still hope.
The study also reports that 25% of kids reported having trouble finding something to read. I buy that one. It's true. Finding a book that's just right for a new reader can be tough—especially when you're seven or eight and can't just grab the keys to the SUV and thunder over to B&N or the local library. It takes exploration. It takes a lot of experimentation. It takes a flippin' drivers license! A kid needs a big person's help to find that first book or series that really butters their bread and initially greases the wheels of literacy.
On that subject, I found the article's little sidebar insightful. Here are the top five sources for kids to get ideas for books to read for fun:
1.) Mom at 65%—See? They're counting on Mom to help them!
2.) Friends at 61%—Nothing more powerful in publishing than "kid buzz."
3.) Teachers at 57%—Now I think many people would have thought teachers would be first, not so. But still critical.
4.) Librarian at 57%—That's why they rock so much!
5.) Dad at 43%—Not bad for dads, but they could do better (turn off the game!).
Anyhoo, it's always good to see my favorite topic get ink in the country's biggest newspaper. You can read the USA Today article here (there's entertainment to be had in the comments and in that interesting sidebar).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)