Subtexts: A postscript in support of stronger libraries

In the first three blog posts in this series, I suggested that an effective focus on literacy must include both the science and the art of reading, that most public schools are woefully under-equipped to produce proficient readers (through the neglect of library collections) and that librarians and the libraries they manage are incredibly powerful but generally forgotten agents to produce the results schools want.

This final post is meant to be an afterward, an appendix or a postscript.  A written “…and another thing!” If you were not already convinced that your school’s library should be stronger than it already is, let me share some reasons why it should be.

As I have already mentioned, funding for libraries has been a mixed bag in my state.  There is funding for a librarian for every school – a commitment better than that of other states.  Funding to maintain library collections has been abysmal for the last ten years. If you have been paying attention, you will recall that our world and society has changed significantly in that time.  Here are just three ways in which conventional wisdom has shifted that should be reflected in our library collections.

  1. Most reasonable thinkers today acknowledge the importance of having access to texts that include protagonists and other characters like the reader.  Even a cursory review of the literary “canon” reveals the fact that the hyper majority of protagonists have been male and white. In the last ten years, the publishing world seems to have finally awakened to the importance of producing texts that feature a diversity of characters that more accurately reflects the diversity of humans likely to read those texts.  The twin shift has been the proliferation of texts by a more diverse range of authors. If schools are truly to prepare students for the world they will live in as adults, the texts to which they are exposed must be as diverse as the humans around them. I have no doubt that your librarian is fully aware of the importance of this issue and has made heroic efforts along these lines.  If the funding available is as limited as it is for the libraries I work with, that effort has probably produced no more than a ripple on that ocean of need.
  2. In the last two or three years, the discussion about the work of schools in my area has finally begun to shirt seriously and systematically aware from elevating test scores to actually lifting student learning.  In other words, I am at last thrilled to be part of work to produce thinkers instead of merely answerers.  In the past I have been absolutely transparent about my position on standardized testing both in the blog and in my professional conversations: during this Age of Accountability, public education made the decision to value higher test scores over more learning.  The failure of that movement is well documented by thousands of scholars and voices in the profession.  It was no mistake that libraries have been starved, marginalized and (in some places) literally abandoned: we were spending the resources that should have been allocated to them on the latest magical solution for better test scores.  So the choice seems clear to me: to truly produce young women and men who are critical thinkers, they need a massively wide range of ideas to think about.  There are simply not enough hours in the day to provide students exposure to enough content in the classroom.  They must have access to high quality, relevant, powerful texts that they select to read.  A healthy library directly supports the core mission of producing engaged, thoughtful citizens. 
  3.  Finally, a study of the history of education in America reveals the explicit purposes for which the education of the young has been set.  Too often in our past, the purpose of school has been the training of the young to fill the role set for them in adulthood – roles heavily pre-influenced by class, race, religion and other factors.  In short, education has been the instrument of control. At the risk of being entirely disregarded as alarmist, let me point out that at many, many points in history a recurring strategy for increasing control on a population has been the wholesale destruction or harsh censorship of books.  If public education simply refuses to prioritize funding for libraries in a way that measurably leads to the slow decay of their collections into irrelevance, how can we in good conscience avoid the conclusion that we are denying students access to a resource absolutely essential to their intellectual and social formation?  Many students do not have access to a library other than the one in their school. By allowing those libraries to fall far below reasonable standards of operation, we undermine the efforts we public insist we are committed to undertaking.  Instead of being instruments of control, our schools and libraries should be catalysts of agency in our youth.  Weak libraries can provide no such support.

And there’s more…  There are probably dozens of other ways in which school libraries should advance the core mission of schools but do not.  I would love to hear your ideas. Above all, do something.  If you can’t solve the entire problem, start somewhere. Our children deserve our action.

Advertisements

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s