Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Maintaining an elementary school for just 168 kids is part of the problem. If they closed these underenrolled schools and had even enrollment numbers across elementary schools, then each school could have a librarian, a stocked library, etc. It is a huge waste of money to have an elementary school with less than 400 students.
But then that may create situations where some elementary school kids have to travel very far to get to school (more than a mile). I'm a big believer in "neighborhood" schools, especially for very young children.
Anonymous wrote:Maintaining an elementary school for just 168 kids is part of the problem. If they closed these underenrolled schools and had even enrollment numbers across elementary schools, then each school could have a librarian, a stocked library, etc. It is a huge waste of money to have an elementary school with less than 400 students.
Anonymous wrote:Maintaining an elementary school for just 168 kids is part of the problem. If they closed these underenrolled schools and had even enrollment numbers across elementary schools, then each school could have a librarian, a stocked library, etc. It is a huge waste of money to have an elementary school with less than 400 students.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:As upsetting as this looks, and probably is, let's try to move away from "the more books on shelves the better". At universities, libraries are no longer measured by the number of books they count on their shelves but by the number of databases they offer to students. A library, at this point in time, in school or DCPL, shouldn't be measured in an antiquated fashion either. They should be(come) places of all kinds of knowledge and resources and held to those standards.
Let's say if a library has 300 books on shelves but offers all its children access to thousands of leveled volumes in each classroom offered in Kindles, Noooks, or laptops? Is that library so much worse of than one that has 3000 books sitting in shelves but no librarian or one whose main job is to teach technology? And what about those schools that don't have a central library but instead cultivate leveled classroom libraries, physical or otherwise? How do you count home and school access to RazKids in your "library sadness indicator"?
There truly is more to libraries than books at this juncture!
When was the last time you've been in one of these lower income libraries. I assure you - there are no Kindles, Nooks and very few laptops.
I also don't think very young children should primarily be reading on devices. Kids need the luxury of actually holding real book! And its sad that it is in fact a luxury.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:As upsetting as this looks, and probably is, let's try to move away from "the more books on shelves the better". At universities, libraries are no longer measured by the number of books they count on their shelves but by the number of databases they offer to students. A library, at this point in time, in school or DCPL, shouldn't be measured in an antiquated fashion either. They should be(come) places of all kinds of knowledge and resources and held to those standards.
Let's say if a library has 300 books on shelves but offers all its children access to thousands of leveled volumes in each classroom offered in Kindles, Noooks, or laptops? Is that library so much worse of than one that has 3000 books sitting in shelves but no librarian or one whose main job is to teach technology? And what about those schools that don't have a central library but instead cultivate leveled classroom libraries, physical or otherwise? How do you count home and school access to RazKids in your "library sadness indicator"?
There truly is more to libraries than books at this juncture!
When was the last time you've been in one of these lower income libraries. I assure you - there are no Kindles, Nooks and very few laptops.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:As upsetting as this looks, and probably is, let's try to move away from "the more books on shelves the better". At universities, libraries are no longer measured by the number of books they count on their shelves but by the number of databases they offer to students. A library, at this point in time, in school or DCPL, shouldn't be measured in an antiquated fashion either. They should be(come) places of all kinds of knowledge and resources and held to those standards.
Let's say if a library has 300 books on shelves but offers all its children access to thousands of leveled volumes in each classroom offered in Kindles, Noooks, or laptops? Is that library so much worse of than one that has 3000 books sitting in shelves but no librarian or one whose main job is to teach technology? And what about those schools that don't have a central library but instead cultivate leveled classroom libraries, physical or otherwise? How do you count home and school access to RazKids in your "library sadness indicator"?
There truly is more to libraries than books at this juncture!
When was the last time you've been in one of these lower income libraries. I assure you - there are no Kindles, Nooks and very few laptops.