Letters

I thought the “One Laptop per Child” program (August 2006, p. 11) was a great idea until I came upon the part that stated, “But what about the United States? Sorry, but we'll be on the outside looking in. We already have $400 laptops available... and the resources to purchase them if we choose.”

Well, where are these resources and how do we choose them? Doesn't Negroponte see that there are many, many, many children in the U.S. who do not have a laptop, because they are $400 and above? If there was a laptop for $100, then we could possibly have one per child, but we don't.

I think Negroponte is being blinded a bit by the households in the U.S. that have multiple computers and laptops. How do we become a well-educated and strong nation if we do not help the people in our own country by providing one laptop per child? I could give you a long list of families and individuals who come into our library and either have only one computer or no computer. Don't get me wrong, I am all for helping other countries, but people need to open their eyes to all the things we face here in the U.S. that are not talked about: poverty, neglect, homelessness, to name some.

Karen O'Malley, children's librarian, Mt. Tabor Branch Library, NJ, Give Life before Laptops

You've Got to Be Kidding, Continued

Why do you think Bill Gates hates the idea? Because he has the vision of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation of giving these children running water, electricity, and good medical care—not laptop computers.

These children need the basics of life. What in the world do they need laptops for if they can't read and write? You want to make the laptops with a hand crank so electricity wouldn't be needed? Come on now. What is the matter with you people that you think computing is more important than electricity in their homes? Is this the mission of librarians? I don't think so. Give these people electricity to heat their homes and running water to cook their food.

Provide access to information to eliminate ignorance? What do you think teachers are for? The only information I see American children accessing is MySpace.com. Yes, let us have a worldwide communication of MySpace and everyone can chat and be friends! We need to become more involved in shaping the online experience of our children here in the United States before we issue hand-cranked laptops to other children. Frankly, I am disappointed that anyone would jump on the MIT bandwagon for such nonsense.

All views expressed are mine alone and do not reflect the opinions of my employer.

Debbie Seibert, systems administrator, Tell City-Perry County Public Library, Tell City, IN

As a former Jerling Junior High student, I was outraged by Sandra Kernaghan's letter to the editor (August 2006, p. 13). She stated that by highlighting books for students with alternative sexual preferences, SLJ was displaying a “disregard… for elementary school libraries” and a “blatant political agenda.” However, Kernaghan's true motivation behind canceling her subscription is transparent: she does not want books about “those kinds of people” in her library. Whether she herself is prejudiced or whether she does not want to stand up to parents who are prejudiced matters little. Kernaghan must understand one thing: it is her job to ensure that all types of students are reflected in the literature she selects.

There are age-appropriate choices for 13- and 14-year-olds—So Hard to Say (S & S, 2004) by Alex Sanchez is one. For Kernaghan to say that she cannot read about such titles because she is an elementary librarian is a cop-out—she teaches sixth- to eighth-grade students, and it is developmentally appropriate for them to read books about love, relationships, and dating.

Kernaghan states that she must respect “the beliefs and tastes of the community [she] serve[s].” Does she really think that there are no gay people in a suburb of Chicago with over 50,000 people? I am sure that some of the tax dollars that fund her budget come from gay individuals, couples, and families—some of those public funds should be used to create an inclusive collection. Now that she has canceled her subscription, and thus will miss out on reading your reliable reviews of children's literature, she can begin to provide inferior services to all of her students—not just the gay ones.

Librarian's name withheld by request

I have read SLJ since I first became a librarian five years ago. You have provided me with articles that are thought-provoking and timely. I haven't agreed with all of them, but I have looked to SLJ for ideas and guidance in my still-new career.

I, too, spend public funds with care, respecting the beliefs and tastes of the community I serve, which is one of the reasons why I read SLJ. Despite our beliefs and what we perceive to be our community's beliefs, we must serve our entire community. Yes, even the silent ones.

I must wonder if someone in Ms. Kernaghan's community might have benefited from the issue she speaks of (January 2006), but it is her decision and right to cancel the subscription. I personally, though, find it narrow-minded to decide that something that could help another human being is a “blatant political agenda.”

I was grateful for the article. It brought up points that are hardly ever discussed and gave ideas on collection development and resources. I hope that somewhere a librarian read something in that article that will help a teen. It is that hope that makes me love being a teen librarian. If I have helped one kid with anything at any point in my career, then it's worth it.

Karilyn Steward, youth services librarian, Calabasas Library, CA

I was disappointed in the inaccuracies and mischaracterizations in your review of Questia (August 2006, pp. 67–68).

In her Report Card, Ms. Brisco categorizes Questia as a high school database for the library. Questia's contract prohibits it from being installed in a school media center. The service is focused on classroom use, especially with its included lesson plans. With a median book publication date of 1990 and Lexile scores to guide reading choices, the claim that, “unless there is a desperate need for obscure, outdated, or graduate…” information is clearly unfounded.

Ms. Brisco states that “many” of the Questia books were published prior to 1923. Of the 67,367 books in the collection, 62,133 have a publication date of 1923 and after. The few searches cited are topics where older material has continuing value, and their results are not accurately reported or characterized. Searches that represent a broader spectrum tell a different story, such as those for the Holocaust, cloning, and Toni Morrison. For these topics, the top 10 books displayed range from the 1980s through the 2000s.

In addition, Boolean search operators can be entered in the Simple Search box, or selected in Advanced Search.

Questia has two types of user accounts: individual and school. Individual accounts are sold on a retail basis. School subscriptions are sold to schools/school districts serving grades 9–12, and do not have advertising.

Key publishers with content on Questia include Greenwood, Chelsea House, and Oxford University Press. Ms. Brisco references informal polls asking academic librarians if they subscribe to Questia. As Questia does not currently market/sell to academic institutions, this seems irrelevant and misleading.

Nancy Buchanan, Director of content development, Questia Media, Inc.

I am perplexed by what seems to be a major contradiction in school library service. There have been important and well-publicized studies in the last 10 years that affirm the importance of school libraries on student learning. Rarely a month goes by without at least one new report on the positive impact of school libraries. As an example, a search of SLJ's Web site for Ross Todd, lead researcher in the recent Ohio study and subject of the April 2006 cover story “Ross to the Rescue” (pp. 44–47), resulted in 34 articles since February 2006, including one that claims to be “a surefire way to show how libraries make a big difference.”

Along with the research, the American Association of School Libraries (AASL) has produced an awe-inspiring quantity of words in support of high-quality school library service. Recently, AASL announced that it was going to rewrite its guidelines for school library programs. State library associations have also been busy publicizing the importance of school libraries through print and electronic sources. Tool kits for teachers and parents have been created to help spread the word.

Yet, the situation seems dismal. Reports of closings, downgrading of staff, and cuts in funding abound. ALA has just announced that there is a “crisis” in school library services in the U.S. and that it will develop strategies to combat it.

What is the reason for this contradiction? School libraries are not well supported, either financially or conceptually. I could suggest some reasons—deadly dull and self-serving advocacy writing and sophomoric booster articles, both of which are torture to read for all but the most wild-eyed library advocate. But discourse alone is certainly not the full explanation. Why don't Americans care about their school libraries? And why have the professional literature, professional associations, and grassroots librarians spent so much energy to so little avail trying to convince them that they should? That's the subject for an article or a blog or maybe even a task force!

Linda R. Silver, librarian, Jewish Education Center, Cleveland Heights, OH