By Anita Brooks Kirkland
The Library Dragon. You know the stereotype, best characterized in the book The Library Dragon by Carmen Agra Deedy. In the book, the librarian, Miss Lotta Scales, refuses to let the students (“with their gooey fingers and snotty noses”) touch the new books.
Teacher-librarians and library support staff are typically the most welcoming and positive of people, but I think sometimes we all subconsciously channel Miss Lotta Scales when it comes to library routines. After all, a well-run library keeps books available for everyone. But do our library routines, as well-intentioned as they may be, sometimes conflict with the library’s mission to engage readers and inspire learning? Do the ways we manage things like overdues or the choices we make about collection management create inequities or violate students’ right to privacy?
This has been a longtime professional concern of mine, and I’ve had some dragon-taming successes as well as set-backs. As the consultant for K-12 libraries at the Waterloo Region District School Board, I was able to implement a grant way back in 2008 to purchase LGBTQ+ resources for secondary school libraries. The secondary teacher-librarians were already leaders in this regard. In professional learning associated with the grant, we thoroughly explored the best practices for managing these resources in order to meet student needs. Another topic that the secondary teacher-librarians group and I discussed was library fines. There were varying approaches between schools. I can’t say I was very successful in getting all schools to go fine-free at the time, but at least my efforts provoked healthy discussion.
Our elementary school libraries were (and still are) staffed by library clerks, with support from centrally-assigned teacher-librarians. We worked with the library clerks to reduce the dragon factor in the way some approached overdues. We also managed to delay the final due date to mid-June from the beginning of June. I did get a bit singed by the reaction from a few dragons for that one, but in the end, by expressing clear purpose, and with the support of the majority, that dragonly practice got put to rest.
Are Library Dragons Becoming Extinct?
I’ve been retired for some time and so am no longer directly involved in the management of libraries. Having said that, I still believe very strongly that dragon-taming is essential for serving the mission of school libraries, and in upholding the ethics of librarianship. My sense is that things have changed significantly since I retired, but I wonder how much work is left to do? I believe that libraries can be managed well without routines that are unnecessarily fiery! Have we made more progress in taming the school library dragon over the past few years?
To get a better sense of current practice and attitudes, I sent a questionnaire to a group of Ontario teacher-librarians whose practice I have come to admire. I asked them to comment on a range of library routines, thinking as they responded about:
- Equity and inclusion
- Making the library a welcoming place
- Engaging readers and fostering the habit of lifelong reading
- Supporting the curriculum and learning
- Protecting privacy
- Supporting student well-being
My purpose was to get a sense of the current situation and professional practice, and should not be understood as representative of practice on a broader scale. Nevertheless, the insights of this group of professionals may help guide decisions about library routines at your school and across your district.
Access to the Library and Books
Supporting readers and reading literacy is at the core of the mission of school libraries. Through an extensive review of the literature, researcher Stephen Krashen (2004) concluded that the most important way to develop stronger readers is to provide better access to books. “When books are readily available and the print environment is enriched, more reading is done, and the richer the print environment, the better the literacy development. Access to books means access to literacy.”
I asked the group of teacher-librarians that I surveyed to comment on routines related to access, including regular class book exchanges, free-flow book exchange, and hours of operation. The secondary school respondents mostly indicated that prior to the pandemic, students had good individual access to the library. Libraries were open before and after school, during lunch periods, and during their spare periods. Teachers could also book their classes into the library at any time for a variety of instructional purposes, and students could usually exchange books during those class visits. Kate Johnson-McGregor commented on reading engagement with this level of access. “One of my favourite things is when a student borrows a manga before school and brings it back between periods one and two to exchange for the next volume.”
Most elementary respondents indicated that they had a blend of scheduled class visits and some form of free-flow book exchange. They emphasized the importance of the greater access to reading that a free-flow approach supports. As Elke Baumgartner put it, “Reading happens all around us; we shouldn’t have to wait until our booked time to be able to access new books, talk with the library staff about what we are reading, work on research or even bring back books when we’re done reading them.”
Virtually all respondents indicated that pandemic restrictions have seriously affected access to the library and books. Under the strictest restrictions many libraries were closed and staff re-assigned. In some cases students could place holds online and have books delivered to the classroom, but circulation stats indicated that many did not take advantage of this. Even when some restrictions were lifted, many reported having to revert to whole class visits only. Library hours were often reduced because of on-call supervisions outside of the library.
All respondents indicated the importance of striving to improve access post-pandemic. This is consistent with a large body of research that indicates that flexible scheduling is a critical factor in program efficacy (Library Research Service, 2013). That research also emphasizes the importance of access to professional staff.
I still feel strongly that a full-time teacher-librarian facilitating both free flow book exchange and collaborative instructional learning opportunities is the most effective model. This honours the individual and diverse reading and research needs of all students in a way that weekly whole class visits simply cannot. The responsiveness to “in the moment” learning, inquiry and pleasure reading requests on a daily basis is the most powerful observable evidence to support this model.
Jennifer Brown
Lending Limits
While most respondents indicated that they have some limits to how many books may be borrowed at one time, often dependent on grade level, many indicated that they sometimes over-ride that limit. Others indicate that they are moving to higher limits. Several indicated the negative impact of the pandemic, which necessitated more restrictive limits in some cases.
In my experience, lending limits are generally implemented for two reasons: to help younger student learn to be responsible for the books they borrow, with a gradual release of responsibility, or to protect choice from a smaller collection. I respectfully suggest that we engage in some 180-degree thinking about this. Let me tell you a story.
Several years ago I was the keynote speaker at a school district’s teacher-librarian conference. Being some distance from my home, I stayed with family the night before. As the visiting librarian, of course I was expected to take on bedtime story duty, and ended up reading not one or two, but six picture books with the resident Kindergartner. None of those books came from her school library. She was limited to two books per week there, and because she had lost her library book bag, she was currently not allowed to borrow books at all! This despite her mother purchasing a similar bag for her to use. The teacher-librarian only allowed school-issued bags. A library dragon gone rogue!
Taking advantage of my platform, and being sure not to in any way indicate who in the audience might be that rogue TL, I told my story the next morning, and I understand that it led to a widespread move to increase circulation limits. Only being allowed one or two books when you can’t get back to the library for a whole week was recognized as detrimental to reading engagement. Kids needed to have more books for continuous engagement, or more opportunities to exchange their books as needed. There is a direct relationship between limits and implementing free-flow book exchange. As for Kindergarten book bags, well don’t get me started!
Circulation Practices
Survey respondents generally understood the importance of protecting privacy when circulating books. In most cases, circulation is done by trained staff. In some secondary schools that had full staffing, with a teacher-librarian and a library technician, circulation is open when the library is open, including before and after school. There was some recognition of the opportunity for the teacher-librarian to interact more with students about what they are reading as they run circulation themselves.
There was a general desire to explore alternate ways to manage circulation. One respondent indicated that there were various levels of access to circulation in their board, including a limited module that staff assigned to library supervision could use. One respondent indicated that in the “before-times”, circulation was managed almost exclusively by her adult volunteer.
There was a keen interest in implementing self-serve checkout to free up staff time to help students learn, although with the caution from one that such an implementation not be used as an excuse to actually reduce that staff time. One observed that self-serve checkout would also protect student privacy.
It is at this point that I feel I must intervene. My sense is that in the school library world there is generally not a clear understanding of what self-serve checkout actually means. A couple of respondents reported using self-serve in their schools, but it was unclear whether they had a proper self-serve system, or if they were allowing students access to unprotected full circulation. Proper self-serve modules of integrated library systems (ILS) are designed to give a patron access to their own information only. This was understood by some respondents, who said that in their district they were not allowed to use self-serve.
Freeing up professional staff time for higher level interactions and instructional interventions is very desirable, but inappropriate access to circulation may constitute a serious breach of privacy. Integrated library systems hold personal information and borrower records. Trained library staff are bound by professional ethics to protect that information. Allowing volunteers, or students or even un-trained teachers to run circulation puts all borrowers’ right to privacy at risk. Understanding the implications, and using features of the ILS to mitigate the risk is extremely important. Does your ILS have a limited circulation module that could be run by volunteers that does not reveal private information? Does it have a proper self-serve module where students could sign out their own materials, without access to other users’ records? Do library volunteers understand the ethical issues at stake? What recourse do you have if volunteers breech privacy unintentionally, or worse yet intentionally? Allowing unlimited access to circulation may constitute a breach of library ethics.
Managing Overdues
Overdues are an area that brings out the dragon in many of us. There is often a conflict between the desire to keep kids reading and the need to make sure that books are returned properly so that all students have full access. I am happy to report that at least amongst this group of teacher-librarians, there is an understanding that keeping kids reading and protecting their privacy are the main factors underpinning approaches to managing overdues. Overdue notices have generally morphed from punitive warnings to friendly reminders. There was widespread use of student email notices (not possible “back in my day”).
One of the core issue here is protecting privacy, and therefore protecting students’ freedom to explore ideas. How we manage overdues can also encourage or inhibit access to the library and its resources.
We issue overdue notices via email directly to student school board email accounts. We recognize that book lending information is confidential and respect the privacy of our students. We NEVER post lists and never charge overdue fines. We occasionally ask staff to remind students to return overdue materials, in a general way. No specific titles are given.
Kate Johnson-McGregor
There was general abhorrence to the idea of posting overdue lists or even to asking teachers to help retrieve overdue items. “Some staff can be quite militant about it!” observed one TL.
One response was concerning. The school has teachers running book exchange, and the respondent did comment that overdues are often caught during the circulation process. They run overdue reports rarely. However, the respondent did admit that when they did run overdues they posted them on the board’s Edsby platform so parents could see what their kids owe.
Lost Books and Fines
The general practice amongst respondents was to charge a nominal or standard replacement fee for lost, missing, or badly damaged books. Some offered options, like direct replacement of the book. Most were sensitive to the family’s situation, and waived charges as appropriate.
There was an understanding amongst most of the importance of trust, and its relationship to fostering reading and inquiry.
In my opinion, we service the students and not the books. All of our actions should lead to whether or not it’s helpful to students. No student is happy or proud when they lost a book or damaged a book. They feel guilty and are upset. I use this as an opportunity to talk about honesty, responsibility and helping our community with them.
Beth Lyons
Several respondents recognized making any charges, be that for the replacement of lost items or overdue fines, as an important equity issue.
I feel this is a punitive practice much like overdue fines for late library books. I understand the desire to encourage students/families to care for books but I don’t think this is the way. For me, lost/missing books are the cost of doing business and I would rather see funds set aside with the library budget to cover the cost of these books.
Elaine MacKenzie
This group of teacher-librarians clearly supports going fine-free. This is consistent with growing practice in public libraries. The Ontario Public Library Association (OPLA), a division of the Ontario Library Association (OLA), has created resources about going fine-free, and members of its Research and Evaluation Committee introduced the resource at the OLA Super Conference 2022. They cited data collected by the Ottawa Public Library indicating that the majority of users whose accounts had been blocked (suspended due to fees owing of more than $50) were located in low-income neighbourhoods, and that 3500 children and teens had their accounts blocked due to outstanding fines (Ottawa PL, 2020). Seeing the degree to which charging fines undermined its core mission, the library decided to go fine-free in early 2021. The OPLA resource, Fines Free Libraries, may be very useful in guiding school library practice. Losses are part of the cost of doing business, according to most of the teacher-librarians I asked.
Fines should not be used to generate revenue or to compensate for inadequate budgets. Our goal should be to keep kids reading, and we must be aware of how our routine practices can seriously undermine that goal.
Kate Johnson-McGregor
Ultimately the library is about the people and we don’t want students avoiding us because they owe us a book. We are a safe space and a place for everyone: a library learning commons. Students are the most valuable resource in our space and replacing books is a cost of business.
End-of-Year Routines
Should circulation be shut down early to give time to get everything back to the library before the summer break? What about withholding things like report cards for students who have overdues, unpaid fines, or other unresolved issues? These are the questions I asked the group of teacher-librarians.
The majority agreed that report cards or anything else should not be withheld when there are outstanding overdues or fines. Often this is part of a larger policy at the school or the school board. While a couple said that it was necessary to shut down circulation in early June in order to have time to retrieve overdues, etc., and get the library in order before the summer, most said that they kept circulation available as long as possible. This was often tied to staff time: fewer hours meant earlier final due dates. Some explained the measures that they take to retrieve items, such as paying particular attention to students who are graduating or known to be moving.
One TL described how her attitude has shifted over time, from closing early in June and withholding yearbooks until books were returned to now letting students sign out books until the beginning of exams, and encouraging students to borrow books over the summer.
My dragon lady attitudes have lessened over the year – maybe it’s age, or maybe it’s COVID? Or maybe my journey in equity and inclusion has taught me a few things?
Cathy MacKechnie
One teacher-librarian’s response summed up a vision of a less fiery approach to lending routines.
Punishment should never be the goal. It has been my experience that when students are trusted and respected, they treat the resources and materials that they are given to use with respect and care. Libraries should be properly funded and should not have to rely on fines, print credit money or book sales to fund their day to day operations and to provide excellent programming. This leads to inequities between schools and is unfair. Libraries should have a full-time teacher-librarian at every school to ensure that students get the support they need and deserve.
Jonelle St. Aubyn
Summer Lending
A couple of respondents explained that they have not necessarily promoted summer lending because their urban school is in close proximity to public libraries. Others understood my question to mean staffing the library over the summer to facilitate book exchange – a reflection on the generality of my question. Some were in the habit of lending books at the end of the school year for students to read over the summer, and a couple had participated in CSL’s Eric Walters School Library Summer Lending Challenge in 2019.
The most-cited reason for not lending books over the long summer was fear of loss. This concurs with research conducted by CSL on summer lending (Brooks Kirkland & Koechlin 2020) related to the Eric Walters School Library Summer Lending Challenge, which found that fear of book losses is the most-cited reason for not lending books over the summer. Our research found, however, that this fear is unfounded. Most participating schools experienced minimal loss. Participants considered the cost of a few books as being worth the benefits to students. They observed that students want our trust, and learn from and appreciated being trusted.
Collection Management
There are many, many issues around how collections are managed, but for the purposes of this exploration we focused on whether the library should include special themed sections like LGBTQ+, or alternately identify relevant topics with labels (i.e., rainbow labels).
Most respondents to the survey were against labelling LGBTQ+ books, for privacy reasons. Many indicated that it was important to have the conversation regularly with students about what worked best for them.
These practices are consistent with recent research into information barriers for LGBTQ+ library patrons (Pierson 2017). “Many in the LGBTQ community desire discretion due to a perceived negative societal climate. Being seen to access or overheard asking for particular materials may serve to undermine the would-be confidentiality of a library within the LGBTQ context.” Stevens and Frick (2018) discuss how to draw attention to materials in a way that does not require potentially at-risk young people to identify themselves as LGBTQ+. They recommend against labelling and gathering LGBTQ+ resources in a section. They caution against themed displays, suggesting that these materials should be integrated into all displays. Brochures, print or online, can be useful as they allow students to select titles with a degree of privacy.
The library catalogue can either be a powerful point of access or a barrier for LGBTQ+ youth. Pierson (2017) notes that while there has been significant progress in equitable cataloguing, “online public access catalogues rely heavily on systems and vocabularies that are inherently biased and clash with known vocabulary habits of LGBTQ youth and LGBTQ homeless youth.”
What Else?
This group of teacher-librarians have lots on their mind, all of which are worth exploring more thoroughly as we move forward:
- Thinking beyond the print collection: expanding into lending technology, ebooks, audiobooks and more
- Recognizing the value of all formats. “Graphic novels are real reading!”
- Emphasis on equity and inclusion, and collection diversity
- Better school board policies to support library professionals doing the difficult work of weeding through an equity lens
- Giving a good hard look at the questionable practice of requiring parent permission to use certain collections (i.e., Young Adult)
- Genrification
- Allowing food in the library
By far the issue of most concern was professional staffing.
I would like to see library routines and collection development that support student agency. That being said, in order to see this happen we need to staff our school libraries with trained professionals. The role of teacher-librarian continues to be diminished and this affects the quality of our collections, the amount of support we can provide for staff and students and the ability to help learners develop the tools necessary to take ownership of their learning.
Elaine MacKenzie
Moving Forward
While Miss Lotta Scales certainly became more tolerant by the end of The Library Dragon, I would hesitate to call her progressive. I certainly believe that if the book were written today, her library would have been transformed considerably more.
Of course the biggest and fiercest library dragon is named COVID-19. As one secondary teacher-librarian observed, “School libraries are still functional in a COVID environment, but we are not having the same impact on students.” Many participating teacher-librarians reported having to reduce lending limits, discontinue free flow book exchange, and significantly modify programming over the tumultuous past two years.
So we have a big challenge. For some, the goal will be simply to recover from all of the negative impacts of the pandemic. Many more will want this and more, taking inspiration from the innovations we have been seeing over the course of the pandemic, when necessity was indeed the mother of invention. Either way, we have a unique opportunity to rise from the ashes full of intent to transform routines so that they are based on student agency and well-being, equity and inclusion, respecting privacy, and engaging young learners. Go forth and tame the inner library dragon!
As you consider changes in library routines, why not also consider documenting your progress and reporting on its impact! This would be a perfect topic to share at our upcoming research symposium, TMC7. Find out more.
References
Brooks Kirkland, A. & Koechlin, C. (2020). The Eric Walters School Library Summer Lending Challenge: Findings from the Research. Accessed at https://researcharchive.canadianschoollibraries.ca/2020/08/10/the-eric-walters-school-library-summer-lending-challenge-findings-from-the-research/
Krashen, S. (2004). The Power of Reading: Insights from the Research (2nd Edition). Westport CT: Libraries Unlimited.
Library Research Service (2013). School Library Impact Studies. Accessed at https://www.lrs.org/data-tools/school-libraries/impact-studies/
Ontario Public Library Association (OPLA). Fines Free Libraries. Accessed at https://accessola.com/fines-free-libraries/
Ottawa Public Library (2020). Report to Ottawa Public Library Board: Materials Recovery Model. Accessed at http://ottwatch.ca/meetings/file/661186
Pierson, C. (2017). Barriers to Access and Information for the LGBTQ Community. The Canadian Journal of Information and Library Science 41(4).
Stevens, A. & Frick, K. (2018). Defending Intellectual Freedom: LGBTQ+ Materials in Public and School Libraries. Young Adult Library Services Fall 2018.
Anita Brooks Kirkland is the Chair of Canadian School Libraries and co-editor of CSL Journal. She is a past president of the Ontario Library Association and the Ontario School Library Association. Professional interests focus on information literacy, the virtual library, action research, and the role of the library learning commons. Anita draws on her extensive experience as a teacher-librarian and as a teacher educator, both in her previous roles as the library consultant for the Waterloo Region DSB and as an instructor in teacher-librarianship for the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, University of Toronto.