Letters

A school without books is one in which fewer students will be reading, and those of us who work with students every day in the libraries of our nation’s schools have no doubt that access to the traditionally printed word is an essential component of a successful education.

James Tracy, headmaster of Cushing Academy, has argued that by discarding 20,000 books and choosing to deliver information to all his students in digital format he is a trailblazer who has placed Cushing “in the forefront of a pedagogical and technological shift.” However, his drastic act ignores certain fundamental truths.

First of all, individual libraries are built intentionally, over time, by trained professionals, and resources are selected with the needs of the community in mind. Such collections are vibrant entities that continually expand and contract. Many resources are available electronically, but many are not and may never be. In addition, books go out of print quickly, databases stop archiving material without notice, and e-book collections are compiled by corporations that do not differentiate one school from another. Once a library has on its shelf a book that perfectly meets the needs of a group of users and has the potential for continued relevance, what does an institution gain by discarding that book? More to the point, what does it lose?

Secondly, a school library’s most important goals are to support the academic curriculum, to teach information literacy, and to foster a love of reading. None of these goals can be reached without printed books. The last 500 years have proven that printed books are a uniquely successful information-delivery system and, when organized in a library and used in conjunction with a variety of other media, they offer multiple and repeated opportunities for learning. The removal of printed books impoverishes an entire learning modality and dismisses outright the value of books’ physical attributes, in and of themselves and as conduits for browsing and serendipity.

Finally, consider the facts. Years of research has proven conclusively that students who read improve not only their vocabularies but also their abilities to reason and discriminate. But in spite of the exponential increase in the amount of information being digitized, young people are reading less and less of it. In addition, reading online, both because of the physical demands of the medium and because of multiple opportunities for distraction, does not result in the same focused engagement with the text that is possible with a printed book. We should be doing everything in our power to encourage students to read and engage with the printed page more, not less. We also do our students a disservice if we do not teach them how to use all the sources of information that they will encounter at the university level. Not surprisingly, the use of printed books is still very much in vogue in higher education.

Every librarian we know is in the vanguard of technology use at his or her school and a passionate reader and user of printed books. To suggest that the two are mutually exclusive is regressive and reveals a lack of knowledge both of the way digital information is created, sold, and used, and of the value of appropriate printed materials to many users.

Between us, we have 73 years of experience as librarians in both independent and public schools. Though many of the skills we teach are the same as they were when we first began working in the field, our 2009 toolkit is vastly different from the one with which we started out, and we are glad of it. However, that is no reason for us to jettison our rich collections of printed books.

We are writing with concern about Ann Crewdson’s assertion that the 7th early literacy skill can be found in video games (“The 7th Early Literacy Skill,” August 2009, p. 22).

The Healthy Kids Watch Less TV Coalition of Portland, OR, is comprised of professionals from disciplines that focus their collective efforts on reducing screen-time exposure in young children. The public health literature is replete with studies citing the many reasons (obesity, attention deficit disorder, violence, commercialization) to curb screen time.

The Academy of American Pediatrics recommends that children under the age of two have no screen time. While that might not seem feasible to some parents, wouldn’t a professional librarian be well positioned to reassure them that their children will learn these technical skills in due course and encourage them to read books to their little ones?

Gaze following in infants should be rewarded with a human face, nota screen.

I have to say I was quite troubled by Ann Crewdson’s column in the August issue. First of all, in making her case for increased availability of video games and DVDs for young children, she refers to research from Andrew Meltzoff on “gaze following” in babies. This research showed that infants watch adults very carefully. When adults move their eyes to an object (“gaze”), young children follow the adults’ eyes. The research found that children who began this “cueing” early possessed more sophisticated vocabularies when they were tested nearly a year later. And though showing how closely infants attend to adults is fascinating, there is no technology involved. Gaze following has nothing to do with gazing at a screen. It has everything to do with the eye contact between two mutually interacting humans.

Secondly, Patricia Kuhl’s research (which Ms. Crewdson also referenced) was not about gaze following. It’s true that Kuhl’s research on phonetic discrimination relates to technology, but it confirms the exact opposite of what Ms. Crewdson claims. The young children in Kuhl’s study showed significant learning from storytime sessions with a real person, but no learning at all from a screen even though they appeared as though they were engaged.

Since both these studies emphasize the critical relationship between early learning and human social interaction, referencing them to support the idea of digital viewing as a new literacy skill is misleading and troubling. Librarians are trusted partners for parents in helping to select appropriate materials for their children, but I fear we will cease to remain so if we disseminate important research incorrectly.

Thank you for your letter. It gives me an opportunity to clarify to SLJ readers the main points of my article. There was simply not enough room to give the research the proper attention it deserves. I would point out, however, that the focus of my article was not on Meltzoff’s and Kuhl’s research, and I did not claim that they studied video games. The main reason I mentioned their research was to praise them for creating a benchmark. If there is a 7th early literacy skill yet unidentified, pursuing it would not be in vain because their research demonstrated that developmental stages can be found even years after its formal definition. If the 7th early literacy had been found, then writing this article would have been unnecessary.

Researching video games for education is still a young science. If we are to recognize a new literacy is emerging, we need to remain open-minded and not polarize into factions—only then can we move forward. As children’s librarians, it is imperative that we are at the forefront of digital literacy so we can serve as guides to parents, caregivers, and kids. Only by doing that will we remain relevant and true to our profession. It is a fact that parents who come to my storytimes also check out games to teach their kids the alphabet. It is our duty to uphold their individual freedoms. Though you and I differ, I’m glad we share the same passion for teaching early literacy to children.

This letter is in regards to “Out and About: Gay Teens Live, Love, and Learn in Young Adult Fiction,” which appeared in the August 4, 2009 issue of SLJ’s free Curriculum Connections online newsletter (www.schoollibraryjournal.com/article/CA6667941.html?q=out+and+about).

I know that you probably have already written me off and will just consider me “one of those people,” but not everyone believes you are “born this way.” This is a point of view, not a fact of life. I believe that many slip into this lifestyle because of things that have pushed them in that direction. (And I know people who are no longer in this lifestyle, or are struggling to get out, who feel this way.) To push one point of view on an impressionable youngter’s mind at such a tender age is just wrong.

I agree completely with Diantha McBride’s “Tough Love” (July 2009, pp. 28–30). She really hit the nail on the head with those 10 suggestions. However, I was shocked and appalled by the first of five more by Marie Lejeune (September 2009, Letters, pp. 10–11). She said, “Picture books are used primarily by preschoolers, aren’t they?”

Picture books are some of the most wonderful books for all ages. I am amazed that someone would even write that and send it someplace that might publish it. I assume that you will have an avalanche of rebuttal emails on this one item alone. I suggest Ms. Lejeune reconsider her statement.

Corrections: In our “Pen Ultimate” feature (September 2009, pp. 40–41), we misspelled NaNoWriMo participant Kathleen Kohl’s last name as “Koho.” In addition, we stated that she was an eighth grader when she is in fact a high school freshman.

In our October 2009 Test Drive (p. 13), we misspelled Diggiditto as “DiggiDitto,” with a capital “D,” as well as thesoftware name, which should have read “Diggiditto DC596.” The picture on the left is actually of the Diggiditto camera, whereas the image originally included in the article was incorrect.

With our obligation to teach children how to evaluate sources and how to sift good information from bad, I feel I should point out several errors in your recent online article about Mormon fiction (www.schoollibraryjournal.com/article/CA6700772).

You stated, “The raids on polygamist compounds in Texas in late 2008 and HBO’s introduction of the drama Big Love in early 2006 have undoubtedly fueled interest in Mormonism as well.” Neither the polygamist raids nor the series Big Love are in any way associated with The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, i.e., Mormons. The Church discontinued polygamy a century ago; any members who enter into polygamy would be excommunicated. The Texas group called themselves Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints as well as Fundamentalist Mormons, which is very close in name, so I understand the confusion. Big Love is based on this type of religious group that has patterned itself after the original church. Although there are similarities, as with all Christian religions, many of the practices and beliefs in these splinter groups are in direct opposition to the teachings of Mormonism.

The article listed various titles by Mormon authors. Sister Wife, by Shelley Hrdlitschka, is based on a religious group like the Fundamentalist group in Texas, and Shelley would probably rather you know that her religious affiliation is Unitarian-Universalist.