Giving Kids the Boot

After reading Brian Kenney’s editorial on Maplewood Public Library (February 2007, p. 11), I am completely appalled. At the library where I work, we go to great lengths to get kids of all ages (yes, even teens) interested in what we’re offering. If teens are not allowed to use the library, who will use it when they are the adult taxpayers needed to continue its operation?

On another note, prohibiting tapping, humming, and “easily-overheard talking” would get most of our adult patrons tossed out of the library, too.

I feel that Maplewood is making a serious mistake. The possible benefits of no teens in the library cannot outweigh the negative consequences they will be facing in several years.

Mr. Kenney, it is remarkable that you, isolated in your Manhattan office, could come up with solutions that Maplewood’s own teen council, staff, and board could not. You must be some kind of... genius.

I just finished reading Brian Kenney’s editorial about Maplewood Public Library’s partial closure due to the problems they were having with teens. I wrote a blog entry about it in January 2007 because a poster on Alternative Teen Services voiced the same sentiments that the librarians and the library board did not do everything they could have.

Again, I disagree with Mr. Kenney’s opinion that the adults were being unruly. Am I the only teen/children’s librarian who agrees with and understands what the Maplewood librarians were going through? I work in a middle school as well as part-time at a public library. I also worked in a public library before officially becoming a librarian at a library that was across from a high school and a few blocks from the middle school and elementary school. I still do not think that Mr. Kenney can assume that these librarians did not do everything in their power to accommodate or deal with these teens. They spent 10 years trying to find solutions by working with the parents, local law enforcement, etc.

I think everyone who is so outraged should put themselves in these librarians’ shoes instead of bashing them with all these editorials and blogs.

Oh, give me a break! Pat Scales really missed the mark in her March column (p. 32) when replying to the middle school teacher who asked about Sports Illustrated and the swimsuit issue. That issue may be illustrated, but it isn’t about sports! This isn’t a First Amendment problem. It is a selection problem that Sports Illustrated forces on us once a year by pulling a “bait and switch” fast one. They are using scantily clad women to sell magazines and I haven’t found anything in the curriculum guidelines here in Kentucky about using soft porn to teach our kids to read. Don’t be buffaloed by all that.

Here’s some real-world advice that will let you keep your Sports Illustrated subscription and not get you fired: Call the company and ask them to omit that issue. I did, and it never appears at my high school, but all the other Sports Illustrated issues do.

In response to Paula Brehm Heeger’s article on late fines (“Better Late Than Never,” February 2007, p. 30), I say, “You nailed it, Paula.” We conducted a survey of students a few years ago and found that the number-one reason kids did not check out more books at our school, a 7–9 grade configuration, was that they were afraid of getting fines they could not pay.

Since we were determined to increase circulation, our first objective was to become more fine-friendly. We now give a 10-day grace period. Kids love it when we tell them the “computer” put a fine on their account, but they are “such good customers,” we are just going to remove it. Our other means of forgiveness include Food for Fines at the end of each semester, and giving credit for donated books and for performing small jobs. Our circulation soon doubled and then doubled again following our fine forgiveness program.

I always joke with kids that instead of fining them, we’ve decided to just fine the kids who don’t read. I have never considered overdue fines a source of income. If you need income, try getting a little fridge and selling bottled water!

I found the article “Brain Food” (January 2007, p. 29) disheartening. Parents already know that “the best toy for a young child is an interactive adult,” but for those of us who are full-time working parents, the reality is that there will be times when our children need to be occupied while we manage other tasks (dinner, dishes, laundry, etc.).

Before I was a parent, I abhorred the thought of someone putting their small child in front of the TV. I actively steered patrons away from the video collection when they came into the library with their toddlers. Although I still don’t like the idea of a toddler in front of the TV, I know that it is at times a necessity.

In the Baby Einstein series, the colors, movement, music, text, etc., are obviously carefully chosen and coordinated with the development of the viewers/readers in mind. The company also produces Little Einsteins for the older toddlers. I was just as impressed with the content of those episodes as I was with the Baby ones. They teach children about places around the world while still incorporating the colors, counting, foreign language, classical music, etc., but in an actual story line.

My daughter is 2 ½, and, upon entering the lobby of an Italian restaurant the other night, she exclaimed, “Look, Mommy! The Leaning Tower of Pisa!” as she indeed pointed to a painting on the wall of the Leaning Tower of Pisa. The Little Einsteins visit the Leaning Tower on one of their many missions and my daughter was able to make that “real-life connection.” She wouldn’t have learned that had she been watching The Backyardigans or The Wiggles. If my daughter has to spend some time without me by her side, then I most certainly want that time to be with the Einsteins.

Lighten up, people. Don’t take everything so literally. The attitude in the letters makes me glad I’m a public librarian.

I just read Mr. Shoemaker’s review of The One Where the Kid Nearly Jumps to His Death and Lands in California (Penguin/Razorbill, 2007; March 2007, p. 210). I was interested in his final comment, “Profanity is sprinkled throughout, but this is basically a decent book....” In my mind, “profanity” and “decent” are mutually exclusive. “Cockroaches were sprinkled throughout, but this is basically a good stew” is a similar statement, but I’m sure none of us would find the stew acceptable. At least our stomachs can disgorge whatever garbage they ingest. Our minds, a far more precious commodity, cannot. Let’s not embrace an ever-diminishing standard of acceptability. We owe ourselves and our patrons more than that.

Regarding the controversy of the word “scrotum” in The Higher Power of Lucky, I find it interesting that this book was ranked 690 on Amazon.com before the controversy began and now ranks among the top five children’s books. So it makes me wonder about the motivation to use the word in the first place.

I would prefer to see the students in my library reading books written by authors who subscribe to Plato’s vision so aptly expressed in his Republic:

“Our aim is to prevent our Guards being reared among images of vice—as it were in a pasturage of poisonous herbs where, cropping and grazing in abundance every day, they little by little and all unawares build up one huge accumulation of evil in their soul. Rather, we must seek out craftsmen with a talent for capturing what is lovely and graceful, so that our young, dwelling as it were in a salubrious region, will receive benefit from everything about them. Like a breeze bringing health from wholesome places, the impact of works of beauty on eye or ear will imperceptibly from childhood on, guide them to likeness, to friendship, to concord with the beauty of reason.”

Where are the authors who are producing works of beauty for our children?

The cover for the February 2007 issue of SLJ was so bad I cringed every time I had to look at it. Let’s see, January had a scantily clad superheroine on the cover, so it seems that a little compensation was in order for February. Naturally, this required a little old lady in a miniskirt, pretending to be one of the Beatles, with the incredibly lame caption, “a feisty group of librarians started to rock the world.” Can’t we have some relatively sober, restrained, (dare we say it) professional covers for this journal?