Bad Manners and Brimstone

The cool thing would be to pick the smallest library (let's say Library A=500 kids; Library B=1,000; Library C=2,300) and come up with a Decent Prize that you can do multiples of, and then you have one prize for every 500 kids in each library, rounding off (Library a = 1 prize; Library B=2 prizes; Library C=5 prizes).

Then every kid has a roughly even chance, but the kids in the smaller neighborhoods are less likely to think, "Oh, we're outnumbered by all those wealthier suburban neighborhoods, so I'll never win."

This is the fairest method...but can you explain it well?

Another way is let us say you have 7 branches but then have 10 prizes...each branch gets 1 prize, but then the remaining top page readers (no matter the branch) get the rest of the prizes.

OP -- any updates? Curious as to what decision was made?

I wonder if the popular entertainer would give a discount for multiple engagements?

It's so sad, that libraries are engaged in this sort of 'mine,mine,mine' attitude.

I think what's "fair", and what's "right" are two different things...

Is it fair that children from a more disadvantaged neighbourhood grow up in homes that may have no books at all, and no person to read to them as little'uns because PrimaryCarer is working three jobs to put food on the table and sneakers on feet?

Is it fair that children from more affluent communities probably have more books in their homes than they ever will read, and a mass of people reading to them, tutoring them, helping them...?

Talking about "fairness" in those instances is like comparing apples and oranges: both are what they are, and cannot be otherwise.

I'm guessing AffluentLibrary has more books, and a greater choice of books?  Is that fair?  Yes, and no: yes, because more children, no, because fewer resources are directed towards an area where reading might not be seen as much in daily life, or as easy to achieve.

I think what's "right" is that all children are encouraged to read, and if that means a slight skewing of resources away from areas that are wealthy enough to help themselves towards areas that cannot, well so be it.

My analogy would be: targetting children who live in an area where schools don't have endless playing fields - we all want children to run around, get fresh air, take exercise; sometimes that means resources go to hiring a basketball court/paying for swimming pool time for a school that doesn't have it's own courts/pools.  Is it fair?  Possibly not, if you count every cent.  Is it right?  You bet - all kids need mental and physical exercise/stimulation.

I hope someone higher up the food chain manages to clunk a few heads together before next Summer Reading, ZekailleTasker.

ChezMiriam, I agree with all of what you said. The only difference is that in my area, the main library with the most resources is actually in a lower income area. It also seems that the big city library and also the branch in a low income neighborhood have considerably higher usage than the branches in more prosperous suburbs. I'm sure it's because of need.

That being said, if the goal is to get kids who don't normally read much to read more, rather than to give out prizes, they need to focus less on statistical fairness.

Oh, I was misunderstanding - I'd thought the big library was in a more well-off area.

I totally agree with the bolded; it all depends on what they want.  Statistical fairness is a great way of putting it.