Letters

Readers take sides on flexible vs. fixed library schedules

Hooray for Dough Johnson's article "It's Good to Be Inflexible" (November 2001). It's time to acknowledge that many of us are developing information-literate students simply because we DO see those kids every week! Yes, I know that information skills are best taught in utilization, not isolation. But all those flex-schedule buzzwords—resource-based teaching, curriculum integration, collaborative planning, open access, etc.—are faculty oriented and based on the assumption that students already know what a library is and how to use it. When, where, and how are they supposed to acquire those basic skills if they are not IN the library on a regular basis?

Let's face it; there are teachers in every school who will never see a need to involve the librarian or any other "outsider" in their curriculum. Unless library time is part of the school-mandated schedule, that teacher will never voluntarily bring his/her class into the library. Sadly, it is often the unmotivated, illiterate kid who needs the library most; but if he is not required to be there, he won't make any effort to seek it out.

As "library-teachers," we can motivate kids to read by making them want to know more about the treasures that we've introduced. We can motivate them to learn new ideas by building on their innate sense of curiosity. We can teach them how to find, evaluate, and use information in all types of formats. We're not teaching isolated content matter; we're teaching essential process skills that every child needs in order to succeed, in school and in the real world.

Why are there are so few articles in the professional literature on the value of seeing kids (especially in elementary schools) on a fixed schedule? It's because the teacher-librarians who are doing phenomenal things with their weekly classes (and there ARE lots of them out there in library-land) are too busy "doing it" to write the articles about how they're making it work!
Alice Yucht, Teacher- Librarian
Heritage Middle School
Livingston, NJ

Thank You, Doug Johnson, for refusing to jump on the flexible scheduling bandwagon . We all don't have to do the same thing! The "subject" in the library does not have to coincide with what is being taught in the classroom. Kids love to find information on whatever their interests are at the moment. It is my responsibility to put those books into their hands and teach them how to locate information on their own. It is also my responsibility to serve the teacher and reinforce her/his teaching. In that respect, our library is a part of the curriculum. Hence, when I "teach," it may be about anything, from bats or decimals to hero stories or Jamestown. I use dictionaries, encyclopedias, and a globe when I read stories so we can learn about words, information, and places. Even on a fixed schedule, the library can be a part of the curriculum. But, I want the kids in the library once a week to see me, hear what I have to say, ask questions, make comments, learn how to use the library, and appreciate literature. I could not possibly reach all the kids if I "taught" with only those teachers who wished to develop units involving library resources.

We do have a fixed schedule—25 minutes each week for more than 50 classes. But we are also flexible. Kids may come individually or in small groups anytime. Teachers do not need to check with me before they send kids. If the teacher wants to bring a whole class to the reference area, my schedule is posted. I let the teachers know at the beginning of the year and periodically thereafter that I'm available to plan with them if they wish. Some teachers will ask for materials to take to the classroom. I inform the teacher through displays, e-mail, or casual conversation about available materials.

Our system works for us. We have a fixed schedule with a lot of flexibility.
Lynnea Mcburney, Librarian
Woodstone Elementary School
San Antonio, TX

I am a long-time admirer of Doug Johnson. However, the views expressed in his November 2001 piece reflect many false assumptions about the nature of flexible scheduling.

I praise AASL (American Association of School Librarians) for its continued advocacy of flexible library scheduling. The educational value of flexible scheduling with collaboration far outweighs the pragmatic concerns. Under a Library Power grant, I moved from a fixed to a flexible schedule. I saw every student in the school, and I collaborated with every teacher. When the grant funding ended, 90 percent of the faculty chose to continue flexible scheduling.

The teachers and I collaborated by beginning with standards and developing a curriculum unit. Rather than "covering content," the teachers designed standards-based units that aligned curriculum, instruction, and assessment. I integrated information literacy skills as an ongoing inquiry that students engaged in the library or in the classroom, rather than a "library unit." Many teachers said that the collaboration was the best professional development they had experienced because it combined a thoughtful plan, the implementation, and reflective practice.

Flexible scheduling allowed every child a weekly book checkout. (They would check out books with their class while I taught in another part of the library.) It also allowed open access; students could check out books each day, if desired. Flexible scheduling also facilitated rotating classroom collections. In the first year of Library Power, circulation increased by 20 percent.

With a flexible schedule, I had a meaningful program. The research bears me out. In Philadelphia, under Library Power, students' SAT-9 scores were significantly higher than the scores of students at non-Library Power schools.

When I moved from building-level librarian to Supervisor of Libraries, first in Philadelphia, and now in Council Rock School District, I advocated for flexible schedules with teacher collaboration for all librarians. I don't devalue the work of elementary librarians; they do a wonderful job. But I believe that flexible scheduling and collaboration enhance meaningful learning.

Debra Lyman Gniewek
Supervisor of Library Services
Council Rock School District
Richboro, PA

In response to "Reviving Canada's School Libraries " (News, September 2001), the Ontario Association of Library Technicians wishes to point out that many of our members are employed by school boards and play a valuable role in bringing library services to students. The article refers to the National Report Card [the first national statistical study on the state of Canada's libraries, now underway]. I wonder if the data include statistics on Library Technicians working in school libraries. Probably not, since the push for advocacy is coming from Teacher-Librarians, many of whom have lost their positions in libraries. The profession tells only one side of the story, that of decreasing numbers of T-Ls in school resource centers. They seldom mention Library Technicians, except in dismissive tones.

I would like to set the record straight, since I was hired with a group of more than 20 well-qualified individuals by the Hastings and Prince Edward District School Board (Ontario) over three years ago. We all maintain library services, familiarizing ourselves with the curriculum so we can purchase the right resources. At the same time, we supervise an on-going automation project. I have worked with a Teacher-Librarian as a team, and I wouldn't mind being in that situation again. The meshing of talents is what school libraries need. We don't profess to be teachers, and while I am not suggesting that school libraries are in great shape, I am a firm believer that Library Technicians can and do take up the slack in a system that is suffering for lack of resources. It would be nice if the teachers would go to bat for us while protecting their own jobs. We all want the same thing: resource centers we can be proud of.

Stacy Goddard
Public Relations Coordinator
Ontario Association of Library Technicians
Ontario, Canada

Woody Guthrie

I find myself compelled to present an alternate view of Bonnie Christensen's Woody Guthrie: Poet of the People (Knopf, 2001; Oct., p. 136). Your reviewer was lukewarm; she implied that one book about Guthrie was enough and compared it unfavorably to This Land Is Your Land, illustrated by Kathy Jakobsen (Little Brown, 1998). She also wrote, "The subject matter is of limited appeal to today's youth." While I am also fond of Jakobsen's book, I feel there's plenty of room for a work as stunning and informative as Woody Guthrie . Christensen's scope is broader, portraying Guthrie's life from birth to death against the social realities of his time. Christensen's art is strikingly different from Jakobsen's: wood engravings framed in deep black, realistic and unforgettable scenes and faces, and gorgeous landscapes. She is quite successful at capturing Guthrie's face, and the feel of the book is authentic. One of the purposes of a good biography for young readers is to introduce people who led lives that are significant, interesting, unusual, or even completely unfamiliar. Over the last few years we've been lucky enough to have outstanding biographies of such little-known achievers as Mary Kingsley, Bessie Coleman, Snowflake Bentley, and Gertrude Ederle. I welcome another biography of Woody Guthrie, one of America's greatest songwriters, folk poets, and social commentators, especially one as well-designed and brilliantly executed as this one is.

Leda Schubert
School Library Media Consultant
Vermont Dept. of Education
Montpelier, VT

While my review was primarily a positive one, I did find that some of the time sequencing in the narrative and the chronology was unclear. When I find confusion in a text, I worry that other readers will, too. I agree with some of what Leda Schubert said, especially that "one purpose of a good biography for young readers is to introduce people who lead lives that are significant, interesting, unusual, or even completely unfamiliar." However, I feel that I have an obligation to my colleagues to tell it like I see it, especially in these times of severely limited print budgets, and that is exactly what I did in my assessment of this title. Sure, it has a lot going for it, and I'm glad that some people find pleasure in owning and sharing it. One of the beautiful things about living in this country is that it's O.K. to have our own and differing opinions, but I still stand by my "lukewarm" review of Woody Guthrie: Poet of the People.

Kathleen Simonetta
Head of Youth Services
Indian Trails Public Library System
Wheeling, IL

I am writing in reference to your review of Neil Waldman's book Wounded Knee (S & S/Atheneum, 2001; May, p. 172). As is all too common with children's books dealing with Indian wars and the Little Bighorn Battle, in particular, this author makes a few errors of fact.

He mentions Gen. Crook's defeat at the Rosebud River (June 17, 1876) and then states that Custer's fight at Little Bighorn took place "on the following morning" and "lasted a full day." In fact, the battle lasted two days, June 25–26, 1876. Waldman also writes, "When the sun set, two hundred and sixty soldiers—the entire seventh cavalry—had been killed." Actually, the seventh Cavalry consisted of about 600 men; about 270 or so were killed; the remainder survived.

As I said, children's books on Indian wars often contain errors. I have been examining Custer books for such mistakes for more than 20 years. I feel that history books written for children should adhere to accuracy just as much as those written for older readers.

Zach N. Scifres, Librarian
Sunflower Elementary School
Gillette, WY

I appreciate the writer's concern for scrupulous accuracy in books of history for children, a concern that I share. Not having examined books about Custer and the battle at Little Bighorn for 20 years, as Mr. Scifres apparently has, I confess not to have been aware of the discrepancies he points out. Nevertheless, I do not believe that they provide sufficient cause to reject this book, which has many compelling strengths. Waldman offers a well-written story of cultural misunderstandings fueled by journalistic excesses, presented in a balanced, nonjudgmental way and accompanied by beautiful illustrations. For the record, Encyclopedia Britannica states June 25 as the date of the battle and says the Indians "completely vanquished" Custer and his men within an hour. World Book also lists June 25 and says the Indians killed Custer and "all the men under his command." While the errors surrounding the duration of the battle at Little Bighorn (which was possibly causative for Wounded Knee) and the number of survivors in the seventh Calvary may be unfortunate examples of poor editorial oversight, they do not alter my overall opinion of the book.

Linda Greengrass
Director of Library Services
Bank Street College of Education
New York, NY