Standard Bearers: For AASL's standards, freedom needs to trump control
For AASL’s standards, freedom needs to trump control
Brian Kenney, Editor-in-Chief -- School Library Journal, 8/1/2009
Of the many debates that raged during last month’s American Library Association’s Annual Conference in Chicago (a fantastically successful gathering by any measure) none were as virulent as those surrounding the use of the new Standards for the 21st-Century Learner (see “Sticky Standards”).
Some claimed that the American Association of School Librarians (AASL) was being overly restrictive when it came to granting permission to use its new standards. Others asserted that AASL’s insistence on requiring commercial publishers who refer to or use the standards to seek permission—and, perhaps, slapping them or their authors with a fee—was Draconian. “Free the Standards” became the Twitter-cry of the day.
The standards are a tremendous achievement on the part of AASL and its members and need to be studied and discussed by school librarians across the country. They represent a clear and dynamic model for teaching and learning. It’s difficult to imagine any work in school library media from here on out that won’t—in some way—acknowledge these standards.
The standards were also an enormous investment of time (for members and staff) and financial resources. The association’s desire to preserve the integrity of its standards—which are available to download for free—and recoup some of its investment is understandable.
However, the very last thing the standards need is anything that will limit their impact. After all, the educational arena is awash with standards, all competing for our attention.
Since the storm clouds gathered, AASL has clarified educational use. But it could do more—including using friendlier language, providing a beefed-up list of FAQs on its Web site, and giving more examples of permissible use. One suggestion that has real merit came from Christopher Harris (schoolof.info/infomancy): that the association release the standards under a Creative Commons Attribution, Non-Commercial, Share Alike license—which would allow for the use of the standards in, for example, a curriculum, without users having to seek prior permission. Joyce Valenza (in her blog, Neverending Search, on SLJ.com) suggested another option: the Code of Best Practices in Fair Use for Media Literacy Education, which encourages even more latitude in the educational use of the standards.
Charging publishers, authors, and consultants to use the standards seems reasonable, but it’s ultimately self-defeating. Let’s be clear. This is educational publishing, where profit margins are slim. It’s not like Hollywood is begging for the film rights (with Angelina Jolie as the media specialist and Miley Cyrus as the teen who learns to use technology responsibly). Even charging a few hundred dollars will be enough to induce some authors to pull references to the standards from their work. The effect could be chilling.
While AASL is unlikely to admit it, in order for the standards to succeed, the organization needs the support of commercial publishers. It will be the books, webcasts, and training sessions—created by AASL members but produced by commercial publishers—that will help school librarians learn how to implement these standards. In its otherwise excellent Learning 4 Life (L4L)—AASL’s implementation plan for the standards—there is not one mention of media outside of AASL’s own. The association-in-a-bubble?
According to L4L, “We know that the future belongs to those who can adapt quickly to the ever-changing landscape….” The future also belongs to those associations that can adapt quickly, in this case, to the ever-changing information landscape.
