Chicago area school district considers closing libraries

Adapted from a news article in today's issue of the Chicago Tribune:

The school district in Waukegan, Illinois (population about 90,000) may
close its elementary school libraries in order to convert the space to
classrooms.

The schools are faced with enrollment increases which exceed the schools'
current capacity. Other solutions being considered include portable
classrooms (which school officials say could not meet the demand), moving
fifth-grade classes to middle schools, and running schools on double shifts.

If the libraries are eliminated, the books will be placed on carts in the
hallways. Librarians will still be available to help students use the
facilities, officials say.

The library closing plan is being pushed by school principals. Teachers and
parent groups are opposed.

Carts in the hallways?
Is this the Leave No Book Behind Plan?
--Dave Conford

wrote in message
...
Carts in the hallways?
Is this the Leave No Book Behind Plan?

It may be... in a sense which casts new light on the phrase "leave no child
behind."

"Jonathan Sachs" wrote in message
news
Interesting. This reminds me of something else that
has bothered me for quite a while regarding many
school and public libraries.

It seems that many libraries (at least in my region)
keep whittling down their book supply in favor of
computers. Often, in fact, local libraries will turn
one or more rooms which formerly housed books
into "computer rooms."

Essentially, I think this is a mistake. The
business of a library is books. Further, it won't
be long until computers are as common as
television sets, at least in most homes. Going
to the library to use a computer will very likely
become about as sensible as going to the
library to watch television. Books make a
library what it is. I would like very much to see
the trend reversed, to see libraries begin
cutting back on computers in favor of books.

Adapted from a news article in today's issue of the Chicago Tribune:

The school district in Waukegan, Illinois (population about 90,000) may
close its elementary school libraries in order to convert the space to
classrooms.

The schools are faced with enrollment increases which exceed the schools'
current capacity. Other solutions being considered include portable
classrooms (which school officials say could not meet the demand), moving
fifth-grade classes to middle schools, and running schools on double
shifts.

If the libraries are eliminated, the books will be placed on carts in the
hallways. Librarians will still be available to help students use the
facilities, officials say.

The library closing plan is being pushed by school principals. Teachers
and
parent groups are opposed.

palmer.william wrote:

It seems that many libraries (at least in my region)
keep whittling down their book supply in favor of
computers. Often, in fact, local libraries will turn
one or more rooms which formerly housed books
into "computer rooms."

Essentially, I think this is a mistake. The
business of a library is books.

I must take issue. The business of a library is
information. This is why years ago library folk in
grade-school education started calling themselves
media specialists.

If we start with the premise that the business of a
library is books, we must eliminate not only computers
and databases but current periodicals, newspapers,
microfilm (microfiche, microcard, etc.). There's
no difference of content between a book printed
on paper and a book preserved on microfilm ... or
on a disk somewhere. And once you allow that it is
desirable to offer library patrons information, the
information superhighway camel has stuck its nose
in the tent and won't be shoved out. Someone who goes
to a library to do research will want the most
up-to-date information available, and the easiest
way to keep information up to do is to put it into
an electronic database where material can be added
or mistakes fixed instantly -- or at least with less
hassle, in the case of a medium like a CD-ROM.

Further, it won't
be long until computers are as common as
television sets, at least in most homes.

There are several problems here, particularly for
libraries in poorer areas. Schools must offer the
same facilities to all their students, including
the ones whose homes are for whatever reason not
equipped with a computer. In rural areas this will
be an issue for a long time, maybe forever. Public
libraries also exist to let everyone use their
facilities, not just whitebread home owners. (I loved
reading about a homeless man who found a particular
shelter by doing a web search at a nearby library.)
And it may be some time before database licensing
terms make it realistic for everyone who has a
computer to access such databases from their home.

If you will grant that at least some periodicals
are appropriate for libraries, libraries have another
reason for going digital: cost. A friend of mine who
works in an academic library tells me that the library
has realized tremendous savings by getting some
scholarly journals in various electronic formats
instead of on paper. In these days of shrinking
library budgets and rising periodical prices, this
is a real concern. In fact, the rising cost of paper
publication is a problem for everyone producing
materials in that medium, including university
presses. Going increasingly digital, in libraries or
out, is one way information can continue to be
disseminated -- if we can get around the notion that
dead trees are the only appropriate medium.

I am not opposed to the continued use of books as
information media, nor to libraries as repositories
of information in book form. But to limit the stock
of a library to books is to relegate its function to
that of museum at best, warehouse at worst.

Cathy Krusberg
Internet:

"Cathy Krusberg" wrote in message
...
palmer.william wrote:

It seems that many libraries (at least in my region)
keep whittling down their book supply in favor of
computers. Often, in fact, local libraries will turn
one or more rooms which formerly housed books
into "computer rooms."

Essentially, I think this is a mistake. The
business of a library is books.

I must take issue. The business of a library is
information.

The most traditional definition
in THE OXFORD ENGLISH DICTIONARY,
that a library is a "large collection of books,"
etc., is the one I prefer, though of course you
can find secondary and tertiary senses of the
word "library" to support your position.

This is why years ago library folk in
grade-school education started calling themselves
media specialists.

I don't put much stock in name
changes of that nature. Many of
them are made for reasons of
political correctness of one sort
or another. Personally, I would
consider any librarian who is
not an expert on books something
of a sham. although it certainly might
be praiseworthy if they had expertise
in other media areas as well.

If we start with the premise that the business of a
library is books, we must eliminate not only computers
and databases but current periodicals, newspapers,
microfilm (microfiche, microcard, etc.).

Not really. Libraries long have had microfiche
devices, etc. Those things, and of course
computers, are fine within reasonable limits.
My point is simply that it seems to me that some
libraries have gone bonkers over computers.
Of course you need computers in a modern
library. But some libraries nowadays seem
to feel that it is their job to offer computers use
to the public for any purpose whatsoever. That
is really no better than their offering tv set use
to the general public. The day is approaching
when most homes will have one or more
computers and most people will prefer
their own pc's to those in the library.


There's
no difference of content between a book printed
on paper and a book preserved on microfilm ...

There certainly is. You seem to forget
something essential: the reading
experience itself.

People generally read things on a
computer screen to get information.
For reading enjoyment (and generally
for absorbing the sort of information that
can't be contained effectively on a few
moniter screens worth of data) everyone
I know still prefers books.

(It is like those "ebooks." While I suppose
they are useful in very limited occupational
situations, I know no one who uses them for
enjoyment My friends who got ebooks made
a big deal out of them at first, but once the
fad wore off stopped using them entirely.)

or
on a disk somewhere. And once you allow that it is
desirable to offer library patrons information, the
information superhighway camel has stuck its nose
in the tent and won't be shoved out. Someone who goes
to a library to do research will want the most
up-to-date information available, and the easiest
way to keep information up to do is to put it into
an electronic database where material can be added
or mistakes fixed instantly -- or at least with less
hassle, in the case of a medium like a CD-ROM.

What you say about a certain type of research
needing to be done at librarires is true now, but
it likely won't be too long when all that will be
available on everyone's pc. After all, I suspect
that I am not the only one in this group who can
say that my home access to the net has saved
me innumerable trips to the library already,
regarding the need to pick up one sort of
information or the other. But my computer
has done nothing at all to replace the sort of
reading experiences (both pleasurable and
informational) that I find only in books.

Further, it won't
be long until computers are as common as
television sets, at least in most homes.

There are several problems here, particularly for
libraries in poorer areas. Schools must offer the
same facilities to all their students, including
the ones whose homes are for whatever reason not
equipped with a computer.

What bothers me is that the real reason many
poor or lower-middle class people don't have
computers is not that they can't afford them.
Instead, they want to spend their money on
things like newer and bigger tv sets, crazy
gadgets, or trips to Disneyland or Magic
Mountain. The people I refer to here don't
buy computers since they know computers
will challenge their minds far more than the
other things I mentioned. In saying that, I
am not denying that there are some people
so needy--perhaps families living in shelters
and so forth--they they could not afford even
a cheap pc for their children. In fact, I would
like to see schools funded sufficiently so they
could provide pc's and (sensibly limited) net
access to the children of the TRULY needy.

But far more of the people who don't have
pc's (at least in the U. S.) don't have them
because it is more fun to spend their limited
incomes--and don't most of us have "limited
incomes"?--on other things. The situation
is analogous to that regarding the sort of
people who have enough money to eat very
well from the standpoint of actual nutritional
needs, but who malnourish their children by
raising them on junk food.

In rural areas this will
be an issue for a long time, maybe forever. Public
libraries also exist to let everyone use their
facilities, not just whitebread home owners. (I loved
reading about a homeless man who found a particular
shelter by doing a web search at a nearby library.)
And it may be some time before database licensing
terms make it realistic for everyone who has a
computer to access such databases from their home.

If you will grant that at least some periodicals
are appropriate for libraries, libraries have another
reason for going digital: cost. A friend of mine who
works in an academic library tells me that the library
has realized tremendous savings by getting some
scholarly journals in various electronic formats
instead of on paper. In these days of shrinking
library budgets and rising periodical prices, this
is a real concern. In fact, the rising cost of paper
publication is a problem for everyone producing
materials in that medium, including university
presses. Going increasingly digital, in libraries or
out, is one way information can continue to be
disseminated -- if we can get around the notion that
dead trees are the only appropriate medium.

I am not opposed to the continued use of books as
information media, nor to libraries as repositories
of information in book form. But to limit the stock
of a library to books is to relegate its function to
that of museum at best, warehouse at worst.

Your views are well-stated, but I still believe that
many libraries have gone overboard on computers
while at the same time short-shrifting their book
supply. Part of my feelings about this may connect
with my generally low regard for branch libraries.
Around here, most of them are terrible. They are
very weak in classics and in many other areas
such as art, architecture, history, etc., while
strong in areas like popular fiction and faddish
pop-soc topics like "gay studies," women's
studies, and things obviously aiming at ethnic
minorities. The rest of the library space is
filled with computer banks, it almost seems...

Mr. Palmer
Room 314

Cathy Krusberg
Internet:

palmer.william wrote:

It seems that many libraries (at least in my region)
keep whittling down their book supply in favor of
computers. Often, in fact, local libraries will turn
one or more rooms which formerly housed books
into "computer rooms."

As a point of interest, another recent article in the Chicago Tribune
described the Chicago public schools' misadventures with computerization. I
will stick to generalities here, since I'm working from memory:

A federal agency tasked with furnishing computers to public schools
contracted with a division of a large communications company to procure and
install computers for several schools in Chicago. The computers were duly
purchased and delivered to a local warehouse. For reasons which are not yet
clear, they went no further. By the time the situation came to light they
had been sitting there for a year or more. Apparently no one in the
corporation ever tried to get them into the school, and the school either
never tried to obtain them or had given up.

Trading off books for computers may be wise in some circumstances. But in
Chicago, we trade the books for no computers.

William Palmer wrote:

The business of a library is books.

Well, certainly, that is the semantic origin of the word, but casting our
eyes backwards we can consider the manuscript libraries of the ancient
world, much of which was in scroll form and - unlike previous generations of
humanity until very recently - the one thing we know about tomorrow's world
is that, whatever it is like, it will be different from today's world.

In the past, things changed slowly and printed books slowly filled
libraries, pushing out manuscripts over a period of hundreds of years (and
still - thankfully - some manuscripts continue to house manuscripts). Now,
though, things change fast. It's hard to define the times one is living
through, but "information age" is certainly appropriate. If you want to know
what it costs to go from Tokyo to Kyoto by bullet-train, or what the Royal
Shakespeare Company are putting on at the Barbican Centre, or what happened
to the Spice Girls since they split up, just tap a few keys.

In the light of all that, your original statement seems somewhat narrow and
dogmatic. Surely the business of a library is - at least in part - to
facilitate the dissemination of information, and if so computerised
resources are bound to be part of the picture.

it won't be long until computers are as common as television sets,
at least in most homes.

True enough, but - wait a minute - aren't books as common as television sets
in most homes, too? Where does that line of reasoning get you?

Going to the library to use a computer will very likely become about
as sensible as going to the library to watch television.

Public libraries (in the UK at least) have video sections, and videos run in
conjunction with a television screen. Libraries respond to changes in
technology in all kinds of ways, but the bottom line is meeting the
expectations of the library-using public. That's no easy business, since
different people have different expectations. My mum (in her eighties) is
very perplexed by the early learning section in her local library, which
generates amounts of noise at odds with what she thinks a library is all
about. The fact that people *do* go to the library to use computers
demonstrates that it is sensible now, and will continue to be so at least as
long as certain subscription resources continue to be priced outside the
reach of private individuals.

Books make a library what it is. I would like very much to see
the trend reversed, to see libraries begin cutting back on
computers in favor of books.

I do have a bias here. I think it's amazing that - on my trips to the UK - I
can pop into a public library and (often, these days, for no charge but with
a time limit) check my e-mail, post to rcb, revise my description of an
online auction, browse local bookshops and take a look at what online
sellers are asking before buying, or post a query regarding something I am
researching to someone on the other side of the world who happens to be
fairly expert in such matters. This is an invaluable resource, especially
when we're touring.

Clearly, such resources are in demand. Whether it is the proper business of
a library to provide such resources I can't say!

On a more serious note, there are many online facilities which simply lie
outside the scope of the private individual. Check out the cost of
subscribing to FirstSearch, for example, or Early English Books Online.
Perhaps one day the cost of databases like these will come down to the point
where they are within reach of the average individual's pocket, but for the
present one can only really hope to access them via the subscription of an
institution. Even when things reach the point where computers and internet
connections are sufficiently common that most people don't need to go to a
library for the kinds of general purposes I outlined above, these more
specialised uses will still only be available through libraries and academic
institutions for the foreseeable future.

Books, yes, by all means, but changing times means changing needs!

--
John
http://rarebooksinjapan.com