by Gerald Haigh Writer & Consultant on Education Management
It’s actually an old question that pops up again and again. At the 2008 Hay Festival it became the focus of a very heated debate, following age-banding proposals from publishers. On the one side are those – including many writers -- who don’t want a book’s readership arbitrarily narrowed down, and on the other are those, including publishers and some also some writers, who feel that buyers could do with a bit of guidance. Who’s right? They both are, of course. However, the new Lexile Framework™ for Reading could provide the necessary third and better way.
As I write this, the 2009 G20 Summit is full swing. By the time you read it, the world may have been saved. Or not, in which case you’re probably out scouring the hedgerows for berries and edible insects. What I’m sure about, though, is that however much steam is generated about economics and trade, it’s as nothing compared with the anger that permeates the world of the arts. (Remember the foaming rage when Dylan went electric? Or when Humphrey Lyttelton added a saxophone to the band and provoked cries of ‘Go home dirty bopper’ from traditionalists in Birmingham Town Hall?).
That’s the sort of steam that comes out of the ears of famous children’s authors (some of them, at any rate) when publishers take it on themselves to print agerecommendations on their books. Philip Pullman, no less, led the charge last year, heading a long list of writers, teachers and others in a web-campaign at www.notoagebanding.org.
The gist of these writers’ case is that they don’t write books for specific age groups, they just write them, and it’s highly presumptuous for someone to dictate who can read them and who can’t. Philip Pullman calls it, “…a piece of dishonesty; something, in short, that is a lie.”
It’s difficult to argue with that, I suppose. Children do read “up” or “down” from their apparent ability, depending on – well a whole lot of things, including the simple need of a rest from hard stuff. Why else do kids of all ages read comics?
(When I was about ten, I suddenly discovered that the adult books in our public library were a lot more interesting than the kids’ books, so I started borrowing them instead. The librarian made me stop, so I left and started saving up my pocket money for books of my own.)
Even so, there’s something about the whole high-horse tone of the no-age-banding campaign that makes part of you want to say, “Oh, for crying out loud, how big a deal do you think this is?”
That certainly seems to be the approach taken by some American observers of the debate. In fact, Florida teacher Cheryl Tasses actually says, in her blog on the subject, “So what’s this big deal?”
She points out that American kids’ books have long had tiny age labels. As a busy teacher she finds them helpful, and suggests that the answer is for UK publishers tomake the labels equally discreet. Mind you, I can forgive anything of a young American woman who addresses her advice – “…to splendidly accented, make-me-swoon-at-the-knees Englishmen.”
Over on this side of the Atlantic, children’s author Meg Rosoff, commenting on The Guardian website after the debate at last year’s Hay Festival, also had her doubts about the demonisation of the age-banders. She writes, “Of course the age-ranging system is imperfect, but it's an excellent start in breaking down the gulf between booksellers and book buyers.”
Where does that leave us? The authors don’t want someone else tying their books down to any particular readership age group. And young readers themselves routinely challenge adult assumptions about what’s suitable and what isn’t. At the same time, though, it’s equally reasonable to believe that parents, and busy teachers, faced with a huge choice of books, would welcome some sort of starting point.
And that, exactly, is where the Lexile Framework for Reading comes in. Arguably, in this confrontation, the Framework is a conciliator, because the Lexile measure, and the process that produces it, is neutral. It has the potential to provide the help that teachers, readers and parents need without antagonising the other side of the argument. Consider this, from author Andrew Morton, on the “No to age banding” website: “Biological categories for readership is a dumb idea.”
Well, yes, that’s precisely the position taken by GL Assessment with regard to the Lexile Framework when they say “We don’t buy shoes by age, so why choose books that way?’
The point about the Lexile Framework is that it’s personal to the reader –- a child’s individual assessment produces a Lexile measure (generally between 200 and 1700) Then, because the same scale is used to measure the text difficulty of a book (or any other reading material) it’s possible to make a recommended bespoke fit between any reader and a list of books. And, age-banding refuseniks will be relieved to know, biological age doesn’t figure in the process. This isn’t an either-or choice incidentally. The Lexile measure can be used alongside reading ages, or age-banding of books, to provide additional, more refined information.
GL Assessment is building the Lexile Framework into its existing PIE (Progress in English) tests, significantly enhancing the value to schools and parents of the results. Then when it comes to finding books of a suitable level, GL Assessment’s www.improvemyreading.co.uk website has a large, rapidly growing database of published books with Lexile measures. So the help that people are looking for is there – and in a form that ought to go some way to easing the concerns of the many who are doubtful about age-banding.
When you think about it, children and reading are two of humanities greatest gifts, and putting them together is a process that calls for as much skill and information as we can muster.
– ends –
Links:
RSS Feed
Our Facebook Page
Delicious
Digg this
Reddit
Facebook
Stumble It!