Letters

School libraries need it to teach kids valuable research skills

After reading the editorial in the August 2007 issue (“Desert Storm,” p. 9), I am once again disappointed by the demonstrated lack of understanding by library professionals of the role and responsibilities of school library media specialists. It is even more disheartening to read this unfortunate editorial from the editor-in-chief of SLJ. Is everyone clueless about school librarianship?

First of all, the patron needs of K–12 students in a school library are vastly different from the needs of those visiting a public library or a business library. Collection development priorities are collaborative in school library media centers and are clearly focused on instruction, not circulation statistics.

Avid readers in the public library setting who wish only to read the best sellers or the latest gardening books do not need Dewey to find these items. Display cases and book carts meet the needs of these patrons. However, the mission of a school library media center is to support the adopted school curriculum and instructional program. The needs of not only avid readers, but also of nonreaders and reluctant readers are of concern.

Students in a school library need to receive instruction on how to effectively and efficiently access both print and nonprint resources. This is accomplished through students using Dewey. A sign indicating “reference” is a simple solution for those who have already mastered the “how to” of information access, but for K–12 students, more structured and purposeful instruction is needed.

Finally, in addition to providing instruction, school library media specialists are accountable for assessing students’ performance. Public librarians are not. Dismantling Dewey simply removes a structured approach to the access and evaluation of information and implies that students in the 21st century have no need for understanding what they are doing, how it is done, and why it is necessary.

Please encourage your legislators to vote for the Library SKILLS legislation. It is apparent that legislators, library professionals, and editors are clueless about the importance of Dewey and the impact a qualified school library media specialist has on an instructional program and student achievement.

I don’t see what is so innovative about what MCLD (Maricopa County Library District) is doing by arranging their shelves by “neighborhoods” and dumping Dewey. That is exactly what Dewey does—groups books by similar subject. The only difference is that shelves may be labeled with the “neighborhood” instead of a span of numbers, but it accomplishes the same thing.

Bravo to J. Marin Younker for raising the thorny issue of summer reading lists (“A Classic Argument,” August 2007, p. 25). This topic is crucial for those of us who want to cultivate an interest in reading, not crush it.

Let me share a case in point from my experience this summer: A 13-year-old girl I know was asked to read either The Call of the Wild or Where the Lillies Bloom over her vacation. No introduction to either book was given—no background information, no booktalk, no motivating questions. Nothing. Just the titles.

A short way into The Call of the Wild, my young friend gave up and watched the movie instead. She says she sort of understood that. Just to play it safe, her mom is now looking for the movie version of the other book, too. So much for enhancing literacy development.

To get some useful advice, I asked this young girl how she would pick a summer reading list if she had the power to do so. Here’s what she said: Include science—it’s interesting; pick books that aren’t too long (300 pages or less); give more choices and tell kids what the books are about; pick books about things teenagers are interested in.

I offer this sage advice to those picking books for next summer.

As the producer/writer of the DVD series “Stick ’em Up!” I am writing to express my objection to part of the review of the DVD entitled Learning to Sign Is Cool! (August 2007, pp. 56–57).

The reviewer, referring to the segment which spoofs the cochlear implant issue, states that most audiences would not understand the humor since the issue itself is commonly unfamiliar. As a producer, I was very aware that providing some background information was essential in order for audiences to “get it.” I did, in fact, include in the extras a brief explanation to intentionally set up the scene. The reviewer obviously overlooked this important prerequisite. I would never have thrown something out there without properly preparing the audience.

He is correct, there is a brief explanation of what cochlear implants are and that they are controversial in the deaf community. I was actually aware of this when I wrote the review, and I maintain now as then that a one-page summary like that is not nearly enough background information for really understanding the humor in the sketch about cochlear implants.

I listed the problems with that sketch as an example of my broader concern about the program—it seems unsure exactly where its audience lies, as it includes a lot of material seemingly aimed at beginning signers, as well as other, more advanced material that would require significant background knowledge in ASL and deaf culture. So perhaps I should have said something in the review like, “The humor in the sketch about cochlear implants will be beyond most beginning signers, and the brief note buried in the extras giving background information about cochlear implants will not do much to illuminate it.” But this is a clarification, not a correction, because the point remains the same—the background information, even if the viewer did know to look for it and read it before viewing the scene, is not enough to make novice signers understand the humor and the controversy surrounding cochlear implants.

And it’s a shame, too, because there is some good material on these DVDs, for students in, say, ASL 3 or 4. As I said, the biggest problem is that the audience level is unclear.

I just finished your salute to Lloyd Alexander (“The Remarkable Journey of Lloyd Alexander,” July 2007, pp. 40–42) and very nearly cried. Mr. Alexander was a resident of our community and a user of our library. In fact, he had his initial, and possibly only, experience using computers, the Internet, and IRC Chat at our library in the late 1990s.

A nonprofit group designed to encourage reading asked Mr. Alexander to chat with an elementary school class online about his books. As you noted, Mr. Alexander used only manual typewriters for his work. The group suggested that he contact his public library for help with this venture. Using our (at that time) lone dial-up Internet computer, we helped him chat with the students for about half an hour. He never quite got over the habit of hitting the enter key at the end of each line. Of course, this sent each line separately, creating, I’m sure, some confusion on the other end. But Mr. Alexander gamely kept going, determined to answer their questions as long as they were willing to ask them.

Lloyd Alexander was a library user and supporter and, before his health declined, generous with his time to our local schools and children. For several years, one of our seventh-grade classes held an annual dress-up day based on characters from “The Chronicles of Prydian,” a contest which he sometimes judged. And when asked, he didn’t even care how you pronounced “Prydian”—you could use your imagination! Rest in peace, Mr. Alexander.