With summer just a few weeks away, our focus is on our upcoming summer reading program for children. How can we best ensure children are engaged and actively involved in our program? This year we are trying a few new ideas to encourage participation for our younger readers.
A Little Recognition
This year we are returning to offering certificates for children who have reached a certain milestone of participation within our club. Our Community Relations Department is creating these certificates for children to receive after they have read for twelve hours during the summer, in addition to receiving a free book for reaching this mark. Do you use certificates as a way to recognize participation in summer reading?
(Image provided by Thinkstockphotos.com)
Write it On the Wall
To tie in to our superhero theme this summer, our Community Relations Department is creating a super reader banner for each of our eight locations. For those children who have reached the twelve hour mark for reading this summer, cut-out images of superheroes will be available. Children will have the opportunity to write their names on one of these images and place it on the super reader banner. We hope this will encourage children to find pride in their participation and that they will be encouraged to return to the library to find their name on the banner during repeat visits. These super reader banners will be prominently displayed in our library locations and will help us promote our summer reading program to more participants as we market this program. Do you publicly acknowledge your youngest participants in any specific way?
Pick Your Prize
While we hope the opportunities for children to receive a certificate and recognition for their summer reading accomplishments will encourage future participation, we also have the goal that children will find more ownership over their reading by choosing their own incentive. For their first and second prize this year, children will have the opportunity to select a prize from a range of options. We hope that giving children some ownership over their choice of incentive will appeal to our diverse and wide age range of summer reading participants, and that this opportunity will encourage their interest in participating in summer reading in the future. How do you encourage your young participants’ involvement over their summer reading incentives or experiences?
(Image provided by Thinkstockphotos.com)
This year we are hoping that our ideas to encourage individual achievement, recognize their participation, and encourage ownership in choosing their incentives will inspire increased engagement and participation in our summer reading program for children. Please share your ideas to engage your children and encourage participation in this year’s summer reading program in the comments below!
The post Spring into Summer Reading appeared first on ALSC Blog.
By Andrew Dobson
“Noisy and aggressive,” “childish,” “over the top,” “pointless.” These are just a few recent descriptions of Prime Minister’s Questions – the most watched event in the Parliamentary week.
Public dismay at PMQs has led the Speaker, John Bercow, to consult with party leaders over reform. The Hansard Society asked focus groups what they thought of PMQs as part of its annual look at public engagement. Nearly half said the event is “too noisy and aggressive”, the same proportion as those who felt that MPs behave unprofessionally. Meanwhile, a majority of 33% to 27% reported that it put them off politics. Only 12% said it made them “proud of our Parliament”.
John Bercow. By Office of John Bercow CC-BY-SA-3.0
Both the Deputy Prime Minister Clegg and Labour leader
Ed Miliband agreed that the baying and screeching gave politics and politicians a bad name, and while Prime Minister David Cameron was a little more guarded,
he too thought that Mr Bercow’s ideas were interesting and worth looking at.
So would it help if politicians listened to each other little bit more and shouted at each other a little bit less? The fact that PMQs is simultaneously the most watched and the least respected Parliamentary event is significant. No doubt we watch it precisely because we enjoy the barracking and the bawling, and there is always the possibility of grudging admiration for a smart bit of wordplay by one or other of the combatants. Parliamentary sketch writers nearly always judge the winner of PMQs on the basis of which of the party leaders has bested the other in terms of quips and ripostes – and very rarely on the basis of political substance.
So it’s hardly an informative occasion. Indeed the Hansard’s respondents’ main gripes are that questions are scripted, and that there are too many planted questions and too few honest answers.
Once again, though, maybe this misses the point. Some will say that the civilised and serious political work is done behind the scenes in committee rooms, where party loyalty is less obviously on display, and where considered debate often takes place. On this account, PMQs occupy a very small amount of parliamentary time, and anyway, the sometimes angry jousting that takes place between party leaders on Wednesdays is as much a part of politics as the polite exchange of views we find in Parliamentary committees. Where would politics be without disagreement? Would it be politics at all?
But then there are different ways of disagreeing – and some ways could turn out to be exclusionary. One of the ideas floated by John Bercow was that the flight of women from the House of Commons was in part a result of the way in which debate is conducted there.
David Cameron. By World Economic Forum/Moritz Hager (Flickr) CC-BY-SA-2.0
And it’s a fact that although good listening is much prized in daily conversation, it’s been almost completely ignored in the form of political conversation we know as democracy. While PMQs show that politicians aren’t always very good at listening to each other, they’re not much better at listening to the public either. Politicians instinctively know that listening in a democracy is vital to legitimacy. That’s why when they’re in trouble they reach for the listening card and initiate a “Big Conversation,” like the one
Tony Blair started in late 2003, not so many months after the million people march against the Iraq war.
But won’t a government that listens hard and changes its mind just be accused of that ultimate political crime, the U-turn? In 2012, the Secretary of State for Education, Michael Gove, announced some radical changes in UK secondary school education, including a return to an older style assessment regime. Then in February 2013 he suddenly announced that the changes wouldn’t take place after all. Predictably, the Opposition spokesman called this a ‘humiliating climbdown’. Equally predictably, Gove’s supporters played the listening card for it was worth, with Nick Clegg saying effusively that, “There is no point having a consultation if you’ve already made up your mind what you’re going to do at the end of it.”
So it looks as though, as far as listening goes, governments are damned if they do and damned if they don’t: accused of weakness if they change their mind and of pig-headedness and a failure to listen if they don’t. On balance, I’d rather have them listening more – both to each other and to us. John Dryzek is surely right to say that, “the most effective and insidious way to silence others in politics is a refusal to listen.”
As the ancient Greek philosopher Epictetus says: “Nature hath given men and one tongue but two ears, that we may hear from others twice as much as we speak.”
Andrew Dobson is Professor of Politics at Keele University, UK. His most recent book is Listening for Democracy: recognition, representation, reconciliation (OUP, 2014). He is a member of the England and Wales Green Party and he co-wrote the Green Party General Election Manifesto in 2010. He is a founder member of the thinktank Green House.
Subscribe to the OUPblog via email or RSS.
Subscribe to only political sciences articles on the OUPblog via email or RSS.
Image credit: John Bercow, by Office John Bercow, CC-BY-SA-3.0 via Wikimedia Commons. (2) David Cameron, by World Economic Forum/Mortiz Hager (Flickr), CC-BY-SA-2.0 via Wikimedia Commons
The post Prime Minister’s Questions appeared first on OUPblog.
One of the things I don't think authors get is the concept of segregation in publishing. Let's go back to basics.
Segregation:[as defined by Merriam-Webster]
1: the act or process of segregating : the state of being segregated
2 a: the separation or isolation of a race, class, or ethnic group by enforced or voluntary residence in a restricted area, by barriers to social intercourse, by separate educational facilities, or by other discriminatory means b: the separation for special treatment or observation of individuals or items from a larger group
Now, let's skip ahead to understanding the production of one's books [with regard to segregation]. As a writer/author you probably hear a number of classifications for how books are published/produced.
Vanity: when you pay someone else to publish your work
Self: when you pay to publish your own work
eBook: when your book is only published electronically
POD: when your book is printed one book at a time as ordered
Traditional: when your book is published by a house in NY
I have placed these in the order in which I generally hear most people rate them, with vanity being the least valuable and traditional being the most. Okay, my question to you is who cares? Next question. Why?
Vanity. I will admit that I do not encourage authors who are seriously seeking a career in this industry to go out and pay someone to publish their work. Generally, you pay a lot of money and get very little in return. I understand there are exceptions, but still. If being an author is what you want to make a living at, then you must carefully consider how you present yourself, as well as the value of your peers' perception of you and your work.
Self-publishing is not looked down upon as harshly, but darn close. Most other people in the industry do not feel that someone who cannot get published by a traditional publisher as being worthy of publication. I would strongly disagree with this. It is a matter of pride in one's work. Should you decide to self publish, say you only want to see a small group of people have access to your work, then I think this is quite acceptable, provided you take the same care a traditional publishing house would when developing and producing the work. Presentation is key!
eBook publishing is no longer a "fad" or a "thing of the future." It is here, it is viable, and it is widely accepted and universally embraced by some of the most prestigious publishing entities in the world, including nearly all traditional publishing houses. It is not a venue intended to replace traditionally printed books; it is an additional opportunity for readers to consider. There are no shots or vaccinations required for those who embrace eBooks, simply an understanding and appreciation for technology. Even readers are growing increasingly savvy and accepting of electronic books.
POD [Print on Demand]. This, my friend, is considered a dirty word--but only by those who know nothing about it. This is also one of the most misunderstood terms in the industry. Those who do not take the time to understand the opportunities available in the industry put entirely too much focus on this particular venue. POD is simply a type of technology used to print books. When utilizing POD, a publisher or author can submit a book digitally, where it is stored for future use. When an order is placed for a number of copies ranging from one up, the file is then digitally printed, bound, and generally drop-shipped to the purchaser, be it a bookstore or individual. Over the years, this type of printing has been twisted to cover vanity press. Many vanity publishers utilize POD technology to print their books, so they have become known as POD publishers. This is misleading and in many cases wrong as there are vanity presses that do not use POD technology. In the same regard, there are other houses, traditional, if you will, that use POD technology to print, but in no way are vanity presses. POD is simply what is says, PRINT on DEMAND. There are many aspects of POD that people don't understand. They tend to focus on the negative and not so much the positive aspects. The biggest bonus for those using POD technology is the ability to save money on storage fees. The down side is that they pay more per unit than if they were to print in a larger run. However, while the clients of off-set/traditional printers deal with the extreme fluctuation of paper pricing from job to job, POD pricing has remained nearly constant for at least 5 years [this is from my personal experience]. It's all in the terms.
Traditional publishing is considered by some to be the only way to go for an author. This is where you enter into a contract with a large publishing house, generally one based in NY--though this is rapidly changing. For some it has proven to be very lucrative, but many others have been lured into the spotlight, only to find that they could not flourish or even maintain any form of success. There are more one book wonders in the publishing world than one hit wonders in the music scene of the 80s. With hundreds of thousands of books published each year, the competition for the limited number of slots in the traditional market is becoming increasingly more difficult. Established authors are supplying publishers with multiple books per year, writing anthologies, and building readerships that continue to crave their backlist. This decreases the odds for a new author to get into a slot considerably. Impossible? Absolutely not, but definitely a challenge that could have them graying way before their time.
How does this all go back to segregation? With a better understanding of the industry and how it functions, authors can utilize whatever form of publishing is best for them and still find some level of success. Our industry has been overrun with genres, sub-genres, etc. The industry professionals have taken the focus off of the craft and the author's ability to tell a story, and put it all on the "production." Do your kids care what company made "Tickle Me Elmo?" Of course not, only that it giggles.
Publishing is publishing. It matters very little to the readers who publishes your books or how, as long as (1) the book is produced well, (2) the story is engaging and entertaining, and (3) the story is well written. I can guarantee you that if you put your offset book next to a well-produced POD book; they would not be able to tell the difference, unless you told them.
STOP TELLING THEM! The point is, once your book has been beautifully written, exquisitely crafted, and effectively promoted, you don't need to tell the reader anything else. Get the book into their hands and let them focus on the story. That is what they are paying for. Authors need to understand that by putting classifications on their own work they are segregating themselves from the rest of the pack. It does your career no good, in fact it is harmful, not only to you, but to the industry overall.
Stop giving readers a reason to question your value, let them read your work and decide from there. This holds true for booksellers as well. There are many misconceptions in the retail world; POD is among the greatest, sad but true. It doesn't have to be that way. If your publishing house, or you if you self-publish, are serious about succeeding in the industry you have to play the game. It's all about terms. Know what is acceptable in the marketplace and abide by those terms. Pricing, discounts, and above all returnability. These are the three things that booksellers will look for first. How much will their customers have to pay, how much of a discount will the retailer get, and can they be returned if they don't sell. These are all basic, but the easiest way to segregate yourself in this venue is to put your own needs before those of the purchaser. You want to make more money yourself, so you make your 150 page paperback $20.00 with a mere 20% discount, and it cannot be returned. It also will not be sold, at least not in many stores. You have to consider that a similar book from another house may be $9.99 with a 45% discount and can be returned. You do the math. This may be out of your control if you are working with a publisher, but this is part of the research you should do before going into a partnership with anyone else. Know what you are getting into. This is your career, do what is best for you.
That is truly the bottom line. Don't say or do anything negative to set yourself apart from your competition, and there is plenty of that in the publishing industry. Focus on what is positive and important to the advancement and success of your career. Understand what segregation is and how it can harm your potential for success.
This is your career and if you are serious about it, you deserve the very best.
The Heat of the Moment
Benefits San Diego Fire Survivors
Order from
Amazon.com
John Holbo at The Valve has taken a look at Hugo Award category definitions and said:
...science fiction lacks anyone with an Oulipo-streak. Imagine a collection of short stories each 7,499 words. By definition, they would not be novelettes; but what if they were paced like novelettes? What if two of them were interconnected—same characters, different times—would they now be a 14,998-word novelette? Would three be a 22,497-word novella? Six a 44,994-word novel?
We here at Mumpsimus Central are fans of many different sorts of streaks, including any Oulipian ones, and I'm sure we're not alone. Perhaps some of you out there will take John's statement as a fun challenge...
Read the rest of this post
.jpg "David Cameron")
.jpg?picon=160)
WOW. Well-put advice. I hear an awful lot of writers/authors complain about being segregated by The Powers That Be... but how many of them realize that most of the time they're successfully segregating themselves?
Thanks! :)