someone else’s blog: the Unquiet Librarian


More specifically, discussing their April 2 post, “Do I Really Have to Leave the Role of School Librarian To Do the Work of a School Librarian?”  That article spins off of another article entirely, discussing school librarians as having to find new ways to work and “taking on job titles other than school librarians.”  The author clearly states their disbelief in this idea, even going so far as to say “that such a path will only lead to the demise, not the flowering, of our profession’s future.”

Though they state that “technology integration is a part of [the] processes” they are vehement that school librarianship requires “sound pedagogy that we’re collaboratively crafting with students.”  They argue in favor of more human resources as opposed to more technological integration; they apparently run a library that is, in their opinion, significantly understaffed.  These are reasonable concerns, although they’re ones that make me slightly hesitant about my own theoretical future in the profession, if that’s the route I choose to go down.

“There is no doubt the current model of school librarianship is way past broken,” they say.  But that doesn’t mean abandoning the title “librarian.”  It is still possible to look into technological advancements and new forms of instruction while still embracing the term; “to imply that we as school librarians can’t do the work [the person in the discussed article]… is doing and more with the title school librarians marginalizes the revolutionary work that many of us are doing (and under trying conditions, I might add) in the trenches of our nation’s public and private schools.”  The author suggests embracing the term “librarian” and working to “engage [the community] with the shared story of library we’re trying to compose and construct with our teachers and students.”

This article seems to me more an issue of semantics and less one of the actual work librarians do.  The author is not suggesting that advancing technologies are a negative thing, though they seem resistant on relying on them wholly.  They propose “learning specialist and architect” as opposed to “technology specialist” – largely seeming to prefer the human aspects of that title.  Librarians should facilitate learning, is their point.  And I do tend to believe that, wholly, but I can’t help but wondering if this author has some undertones of the perturbed, idealistic librarians that the Annoyed Librarian discussed in their blog.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s