School Libraries RIP? Librarians speak out

I am grateful to colleagues who have taken the trouble to engage in this important debate. I would encourage all to read the following responses to my recent blogposts on school libraries.

• The Librain "No, libraries are not dead yet!" 04/02/ 2011 [Librarian at The Dixie Grammar School, Market Bosworth, Leicestershire]
• Nicola McNee "School Libraries RIP? – an open reply to An Independent Head" 03/02/2011 [Librarian at Kingswood School, Bath, UK.]
  

School Libraries RIP? The debate continues . . . .

In my previous blogpost ["School Libraries RIP? The debate begins . . . . "], I dared to raise the question of whether or not school libraries need to have books. Little did I realise that even opening up such a debate would elicit such a rear-guard action from librarians – their comments [and abuse!] are published below for all to read. I was somewhat taken aback that such a literate group as librarians should not pick up on the nuance of the argument.

First, my argument related to whether or not schools need to continue to dedicate resources [money and space] to having books in their library. For the record, I think that we all agree that we want pupils to be able to access quality information and books - these are important tools for learning.
The questions we face are:

1. Do schools need to provide a lending facility?
   
2. Do books and information need to be in a printed format?
   

The response to my argument was what Nicholas Negroponte would no doubt describe as a confusion between “atoms” and “bytes” [see Being Digital, MIT 1995, pp. 11-13] . Just because a library doesn’t have physical books [atoms] does not mean that the pupils in there don’t have access to the information/ narratives etc [bytes].

As Eli Neiburger argued in his insightful presentation to the LJ/SLJ eBook Summit [See the YouTube clip – "Libraries are Screwed" part two], in a world where pupils have excellent connectivity and can download any book at any time, there is no value having a “local copy”. Most of us can accept that there is little point owning the DVD if we can we stream and watch any movie on demand; I see no difference with being able to download and read any book on demand. I accept that we might not yet be at a point where this is the case, but with Google’s mission statement to digitise the world’s information, it is just round the corner. It would be naïve to ignore this development and not to discuss its impact on schools and their libraries. To answer my own questions, I can see the day when independent secondary schools no longer provide a lending facility and that pupils will access information and books from the Internet. Over time, mostly likely this will be via their own devices in digital format.

Secondly, at no point did I, nor would I, argue that we don’t need librarians. [It’s OK guys – your jobs are safe!] My article was not an attack on librarians. For those of you out there who have jumped to all sorts of erroneous assumptions about my school librarians here at Berkhamsted, they are an excellent team who are very forward-thinking, adaptable and innovative in their approach. They do what all good librarians should do: they support learning, guide and promote reading and teach research skills. The law of the Internet age is that if you are going to be a middle-man, you have to add value. Teachers and librarians both do this by inspiring young people, teaching skills, promoting understanding and helping them to access relevant information.

So let’s take this debate further forward.
My school is just about to give each pupil a photocopying/ printing allowance for each term so that they can use school “multi-functional devices” [scanner/printer/photocopiers] to support their teaching and learning. Rather than purchasing books for the library [which we need to catalogue, monitor and store] why not give each pupil a termly Amazon voucher to spend on books [in atom or byte format] to support their teaching and learning? The only catch would be that they would have to write a review of the book they read for the School Library blog.

School Libraries RIP? The debate begins . . . . .

For many, books are to be equated with learning: afterall to be "well-read" is to be educated. Thus I am conscious that, for some, it is heresy for a headteacher to even consider the question. No true educationalist could consider a school without a library. However, at risk of blowing all my educational credentials in one go, I feel that someone has to be brave enough to ask the question.

The more I think about it, the more I find myself questioning why we are still spending money on books and on the School library. Let me explain why:

Amazon announced last week that they sold more e-Books than paperbacks in the US [BBC News story 28/01/11]. The writing is on the wall for the codex - books are going electronic. Printed editions will be survive, but, like LPs [that's vinyl for those under 30] they will be for collectors - there will always be people who want fine editions of books [after all people pay a premium for Folio Society editions and Hardbacks]. However, the direction of travel is clear: mass publication from newspapers to novels will be electronic. It is no surprise that I am asking myself whether or not we need a School Library and, if we do, what will it look like.

Last week, I asked my Lower Sixth Oxbridge group when they last borrowed a book from the School Library. No one had done so since Year 7 when they had been made to do so by their English teacher. Don't get me wrong - they are all readers, most said that they would much rather own the text rather than borrow one. One girl commented that she used the Art books in the library, but only because she was able to get higher quality scans of the art work than she could download from the Internet. They don't use the reference books, because it is quicker, easier and probably as accurate to use Wikipedia. Most saw the Library as a quiet place to work or a place to get online.

I'm not sure that this is really a million miles away from where we were 25 years ago. When a student, I enjoyed working in the Cambridge University Library, or in the faculty libraries rather than working in my room. Why? Not because of access to the books - I often took them with me - but because it was a good working environment, it was a change of scenery, it didn't have the distractions of my College corridor, the UL had a great coffee shop and yet it was very all very sociable. Later in life I spent a summer working in the Radcliffe Camera in Oxford - and what an inspiring place that was to study.

So, I like the idea of libraries as places where young people can work, but I wonder [and I know that there is somewhat an etymological paradox about what I am going to say] if we actually need books in our library? I'm not even sure that we need to have an e-Library? If they want to download a book, young people will do it their way - I'm not sure that it makes any sense to commit resources to trying to get them to do it my way. No, I think that schools need to create inspiring spaces where young people can hang out, get connected and get on with their work - if we call those places "Libraries", so be it.

Herewith some very interesting reflections on the future of Libraries: