We live in an age when the word "literacy" is the equivalent of educational gold. All teachers need to use it -- so instead of working on actual art and delving into the actual creative process, teachers need to add a reading -- literacy -- component to their work.
Swell.
Why then do the jobs of librarian so often wind up on the chopping block? Ask kids in inner city schools -- the kids who do not generally have money in their budget to buy books -- what they think is important and they'll mention the need for a good library that they have access to.
So, why do principals who supposedly embrace literacy get rid of the librarian? Is it because they think that job can be done by anyone? Is it because they feel the need to up the technology budget? Whatever it is, it makes no sense.
At my old school in Brooklyn, students were not allowed in the building without a book. No one stopped those kids to even ask them about the book they were reading. I caught an 8th grade boy reading 50 Shades of Grey; I caught a 5th grader using the book The Things They Carried as his pass to enter the building.
My principal's policy of using a book to gain entry to the building must have looked damn fine on paper. It was a joke in real life. But no one cared.
Well, no one cared until the literacy scores came in. Then the teachers were yelled at for poor scores. All the kids need is a book -- and access to it.
Go out and hire more librarians. Have them get kids involved in the LOVE of reading. Have them start book groups -- for students AND teachers. (Frankly, I find it suspect to work with teachers who claim they are too busy to read. ?????)
No comments:
Post a Comment