Letters

No amount of technology can raise kids’ intelligence levels

Technology, technology: this seems to be the mantra sung to propitiate the gods of learning these days in American public schools (“Flip This Library,” November 2008, pp. 46–48). Given enough technology and “collaborative teaching,” wonders are to be performed. Well, I have taught in a community college for 18 years, where many of my students are fresh from high school, and if you believe that more technology will produce better outcomes, I have a bridge you can buy!

The problem is not the lack of technology and “personal devices,” but a diminution of standards. By standards I do not mean NCLB; I mean personal accountability for success and behavior. Charles Murray writes in his book Real Education: Four Simple Truths for Bringing America’s Schools Back to Reality that students are not equal in ability and that some are just plain stupid... that is a fact. No amount of technology is going to change this situation.

Yet American schools do not recognize this. Who gets left behind anymore due to failure to learn a subject or a skill? Who gets expelled for antisocial or violent behavior? Instead, these students are sent to “counseling” and labeled with an alphabet soup of syndromes and other excuses instead of being held accountable for their actions. Yet these same students have all the technology and personal devices their parents and the school can provide. So by centralizing this technology in a “learning commons,” things will change? I think not. And I object to the ever-frequent “paradigm shifts” the education profession foists upon taxpayers every decade instead of solving the real problem as described above.

While David Loertscher’s article “Flip This Library” has several wonderful ideas, when I hit the first “teacher-librarian,” I very nearly stopped reading. Can we please get away from this title? Why can’t we use “school librarian” or “media specialist” or “librarian,” or anything besides “teacher-librarian?” This designation places our role in a very awkward and nearly subservient position.

Even though this idea of a learning commons is an exciting one, the first step for most public schools would be to fight the battle of the “tekkies.” These are the people in charge of our technology, Web access, and filters—the overall self-appointed “guardians of our morality.” These people operate from a sinister headquarters somewhere “downtown,” and dictate what may and may not be accessed by staff and students. For example, the idea of using blogs or personal home pages would be complete anathema to our tekkies. They have even blocked the student emails, effectively stopping communication between staff and students concerning class projects and assignments to be emailed, etc.

Also, budgetary constraints are a reality, so purchasing databases and downloadable book services, paying for essential training for staff, and convincing the administration to get away from their precious curriculum, which they purchased with no input from staff, to allow real learning to take place are, at least here, insurmountable obstacles to the learning commons concept.

I have been doing research on games in libraries since late 2006 and have two concerns about your December 2008 column “Zero Budget?” (pp. 28–29) on the use of video games in school libraries.

The first concern is about the authors’ suggestion to charge for gaming activities. We have been looking at the legal aspects of using video games in libraries. These games are covered under an End User License Agreement, which typically allows someone to use the game only in a home and not in a public setting. In addition, games that rely upon licensed music cause an additional issue with the public performance of this music. It is suggested that libraries write and get permission before using video games in public settings. In doing further research and talking with lawyers, one of the first questions that comes up is “Do you charge for the event?”

In the court cases we have found, the issue of charging is a key point in the decision for or against game companies suing for inappropriate use of their games. In addition, charging a fee that then becomes the prize money would be seen in some areas as gambling. I would strongly urge libraries to not charge directly for gaming events without approval of their school boards, as there could be legal issues involved.

The second concern is about the focus on video games. In the last 15 years, there has been a resurgence of board and card games that go far beyond the typical Monopoly, Risk, and Trivial Pursuit. Board games are much less expensive, do not require another system to run, and do not have End User License Agreements. If you purchase five $40 designer board games, you can have five groups of students playing, while if you purchase five $50 console games and one $300 console, you can only have one group of students playing.

Chris Harris and Brian Mayer, with the Genesee Valley, NY, BOCES system, have been mapping recreational board games to curricular goals and recommend many board games appropriate for school libraries. Their first criterion is that the game be an authentic game, as compared to an “educational game.”

Just as the library would not collect only the top sellers to represent fiction, I urge you to consider the wide variety of game activities to represent gaming. Board, card, Web-based, role-playing, and handheld games can work alongside console games to provide a more varied gaming experience that will attract a wider variety of visitors.

I have just read the first 20 pages of Suckerpunch by David Hernandez, and I cannot believe you would recommend this book for a high school library. I depend on SLJ for reviews before ordering books. You certainly let this one slip by, or you are too lax on your reviews.

I sincerely hope that Nashville’s attempt to put school libraries under the control of public libraries is unsuccessful and not repeated (“A Shotgun Wedding,” December 2008, p. 9).

In Philadelphia, most schools do not have a school library but depend on the local public libraries, which do a wonderful job with the teachers and students from what I understand (I’m in the suburbs).

The problem now is that the mayor has to cut the budget, and several libraries are being closed. The schools that depended on them no longer have libraries at all.

Corrections: Amber Kizer’s Gert Garibaldi’s Rants and Raves: From Butt to Booty (Delacorte), reviewed in our February 2009 issue (p. 102), will not be published until July 2010.

On page 116 of the December 2008 issue, Ruth Freeman Swain’s title was misprinted as Underwear: What We Wear Down There. The correct title is Underwear: What We Wear Under There (Holiday House).