SL2.0: Visioning the School Library 2.0

These are some of the thoughts that make up my vision of what School Library 2.0 (until otherwise named with a more fitting name) might look like. You will notice that, based on the naming scheme, this is built on the ideas from Web 2.0 and the Library 2.0 remix of those ideas tempered by some issues school libraries are facing today.

A Vision – NOT The Vision
One of the beautiful pieces of Web2.0 is the flexibility of the concept to meet a variety of differing needs through subtle (or radical) modifications of (hopefully open source) tools. This is A vision, not THE vision – and this vision is distributed under Creative Commons, so please feel free to modify it. In the end, any change will be based on the requirements of different situations in different areas. My feeling is that we are talking about an evolutionary change that gradually leads to revolutionary new school library services. We are adapting to meet external changes, not overthrowing an internal failure. As has been said about Library 2.0, remember that one or two changes a year is a big step. This is a long term discussion.

The School Library 2.0 Features

1. The SCHOOL LIBRARY as a Platform: Though NCLB does not recognize librarians as “highly qualified teachers” thereby leading to the exclusion of school libraries from many NCLB-based proposals, the US Department of Education does recognize the power of school libraries, as highlighted by the AASL in their brochure “Your School Library Media Program and No Child Left Behind.” An article from the NCLB newsletter, The Achiever, notes that “School library media centers can contribute to improved student achievement by providing instructional materials aligned to the curriculum; by collaborating with teachers, administrators and parents; and by extending their hours of operation beyond the school day” (The Achiever).

   There is nothing inherently new in that statement, so how does it apply to the idea of SL2.0? The change, as with many of the items I will be talking about in this post, is a shift in perception that can come from viewing this from a Web2.0 perspective. Using that viewpoint, this quote can be seen to be talking about the school library media center as a platform. This is a critical distinction, especially given the digital (re)shift I talked about yesterday. When the school library is a platform, it extends beyond the walls of a room – in fact, maybe it so transcends the walls of a room that the room becomes secondary. With this view, as with Web 2.0, the real power and purpose lies with the tools that can exist because of the platform. The library isn’t what is critical to student success, it is the librarian.

   School Library 2.0 is about refocusing attention to the possibilities provided to a school when it makes use of the school library platform. In addition to librarians, who may base from a library but will also most likely be called upon more and more to be pedagogy and curriculum consultant teachers, the SL2.0 platform can also provide access to resources from and through the library platform in both physical and digital modes. One way to enhance the access is through the use of Web2.0 applications like blogging, RSS, social bookmarking, and wikis. When the school library is a platform, that means it can be like a basecamp (kind of like a BaseCamp) for Web2.0 tool implementations. This only makes sense…as a platform, the school library is the base for curriculum support resources in all their varied formats.

   To directly address some of the other issues, another format that School Libraries 2.0 might want to be more a part of are “book rooms” for leveled readers. Many school libraries are part of this already (either willingly or unwillingly), but SL2.0 can adopt this as a platform based service and seek to add value through established resource management and sharing capabilities. For instance, in NY state we have these wonderful School Library Systems that can help coordinate purchasing on a regional level. Group purchasing + established, expert interlibrary loan practices + librarian management = leveled reading on an SL2.0 platform.

2. Harnessing Collective STUDENT and TEACHER Intelligence: As I mentioned before, L2 often talks about tapping into patron intelligence through things like catalog tagging. In schools, I don’t know how effective this would be, but there are other intelligences that we could be accessing, or accessing in more efficient ways.

   One best practice for school libraries is to involve students in book selection. What might book selection in a Web2.0 environment look like? Maybe students browse around Barnes and Noble or Amazon and then use del.icio.us to tag suggested titles “for” their librarian. Or perhaps we could get Tim Spalding at LibraryThing.com to develop SchoolLibraryThing so students could use an Amazon bookmarklet to add suggested titles to a wishlist. This would work with teachers as well. Need a book for your chemistry class? Go see what other teachers/librarians are tagging for “Chemistry.” If the librarian used SchoolLibraryThing for developing book lists, she/he could have an automatic coming soon widget on the school library’s blog. Real world, user-focused acquisitions – how’s that for an ILS manifesto item?

   School Libraries are realizing that blogs and podcasting can be great tools for book discussions and book talks. SL2.0 extends this to tap students and teachers as the authors of the book discussion blogs and book talk podcasts. Many schools are moving to digital phone systems that can send voice mail messages to an e-mail account as an MP3 file. Post a special “Book Talk” phone number so students can send in book talk snippets from their cell phones. Not so much different from many of the activities that school librarians are already doing to encourage reading, but it does involve a shift in both audience reach and focus. Web2.0 tools build bridges to distant audiences.

3. SCHOOL LIBRARIES are the Next Intel Inside: In my L2 synthesis, I focused on the data piece of this Web2.0 idea. While school librarians, along with all school personnel, need to be acutely aware of data in this age of increasing accountability, I wanted to focus here on the idea of Intel Inside for SL2.0. As I briefly outlined earlier, the Intel Inside of SL2.0 involves showcasing the value added that school libraries and school librarians bring to learning. A common theme for many school librarians is a dislike for marketing. SL2.0 cannot shy away from the necessity of marketing in an era of increasing demands and decreasing resources.

   Notice that I am talking about marketing. We hear quite a bit about advocacy and the need to advocate for students and libraries, and this is indeed an important issue, but this is different. Advocacy is telling people the how and why of the library. Marketing is telling them what you do for them. Advocacy talks about why libraries are still a critical part of schools and librarians vital people in the age of Google. Marketing tells students and teachers that you are there to help them find what they are looking for online.

   We also have a lot of work to do in SL2.0 about the image of a school librarians as not being teacher librarians. The 65% solution calls for 65% of school funding to go to classrooms to support student learning, yet school libraries are not seen as supporting learning and are left out of this proposal. SL2.0 as a platform must be very diligent about detailing the valuable services provided from and through the SL2.0 that support learning within the school. Being the Intel Inside is making sure you slap a “Powered by the School Library” sticker on everything you do. It is about making sure people know that the library is the person/place/thing/idea that helps make learning happen throughout the school.

4. End of the SCHOOL LIBRARY Release Cycle: This may be a bit of a stretch from Web2.0, but stick with me for a bit. The “software release cycle” of the School Library 2.0 is the lesson plan. SL2.0 ends the flex/fixed argument once and for all by shifting to a new model for scheduling. If Mrs. Smith in second grade wants to have a fixed schedule in the library, that is fine…she just might not have a fixed schedule with the librarian. The librarian may be in another classroom, in a computer lab, or off on a research excursion with students. There is no more weekly library lesson because that cycle, like the software release cycle that pushes out buggy programs, is often used to meet the needs of the wrong group.

   The needs of the students are best met with a SL2.0 that includes a librarian who serves as a curriculum and pedagogy consultant to help teachers help students learn. Librarians have access to an amazing number of resources to meet all kinds of different learning styles and levels, but can sometimes struggle to deliver them to teachers. If the library door is like a drive-thru student dropoff for teachers, the “release cycle” is pretty limited to before school (hectic prep time) or after school (drained prep time). I know librarians are already involved in push-in programs, and I think SL2.0 will see more of this both for student help and teacher assistance.

   With the current focus on accountability on high-stakes test, there is no other choice for the SL2.0. Remember, in many ways the tests are stacked against us already. We are judged on yearly growth that compares two separate groups of students. The only way to respond to this is to become incredibly focused on the individual learning needs of each student cohort. There is no way this can happen within a “weekly release cycle” that is built around providing teachers with a break. Neither, I think, can it happen within a traditional flexible access schedule. SL2.0 scheduling needs to be based on making use of the school library platform. This means that multiple classes may be using “the library” at the same time; one class is using the physical space, another class has physical resources scheduled for delivery, a third class is booked into a virtual learning space, while even more classes are using digital resources. The librarian may be assisting any or all of these classes. This idea of scheduling also ties in with the Intel Inside identification of “Library Powered Learning.”

5. Lightweight SCHOOL LIBRARY Programming: Perhaps this is best defined as a need for SL2.0 to be flexible. Like Web2.0 development, programming in SL2.0 needs to be focused on providing what is needed when it is needed through new tools. Pathfinders in SL2.0 can be built on the fly using RSS extractions from resource lists held on something like del.icio.us. Or, if you want to focus on the SL2.0 as a platform, you can download the open source social bookmarking program Scuttle to build your own and allow user input. Perhaps the SL2.0 Scuttle will include an easy way to “bookmark” print resources as well as non-print. Again, an evolutionary change from current best practice that shifts how we do things into a Web2.0 frame of mind. Pathfinders on-the-fly built from a modified social bookmarking application that allow easy editing and user input showcases the Intel Inside of the SL2.0.
6. SCHOOL LIBRARIES Above the Level of a Single CLASSROOM: This is a change that needs to be recognized outside of a school library based on the changes from within a School Library 2.0. In many ways, libraries are fighting a battle on two fronts. If you say libraries are about books, you run into trouble with things like leveled reading book rooms that are built from a set of pre-selected, program-mandated resources. School libraries will have to not only become recognized as being important classrooms where learning happens, but rise above the level of a single classroom. SL2.0 is about being a platform that supports an entire community of learners.
7. Rich SCHOOL LIBRARY Experience: Yes. SL2.0 is about finding a way to meet learner needs. It is about harnessing the power of ideas (Web2.0, Library2.0,Etc2.0) to continue to live out the mission of school libraries. It is not about throwing out the old, but rather modifying perceptions of what is working to meet new challenges.

Posted in SL2.0, infomancy | 7 Comments »