|
||||||||||||||||||||
|
 |
Introduction A school-housed public library as a venue for public library service has been a controversial issue for over half a century. One of the earliest reports discussing the issue was a 1911 article by J. C. Dana entitled "Branch Libraries in School Houses".1 However, according to L.J. Amey:
Why, then, after years of research, discussion and multiple position papers, are we reviewing this issue yet again?
The goals and objectives resulting from this meeting and articulated in the report Independent but Together promoted the concept of a multitype library system, with a variety of institutions cooperating to provide it. In this atmosphere of cooperation, public organizations have had several tough years financially, as governments at all levels cope with the demon of "deficits". Cutbacks have caused government officials and managers of public institutions to search for ways to effectively use the limited resources at their disposal. Nine factors causing the renewal of this debate were identified by the Committee on School/Public Library Cooperation struck by the Saskatchewan Library Trustees' Association in 1994:
The Saskatchewan Library Trustees' Association struck a committee, to respond to the Minister's request, in early 1994. This committee was composed of the Chairperson from Saskatchewan Library Trustees' Association, two representatives from the Saskatchewan Library Trustees' Association, two representatives from Saskatchewan Library Association and the Provincial Librarian. Over the year of meetings, the personnel changed, but the representation remained intact. The Committee studied outside research, discussed operations with administrators of existing Saskatchewan school-based public library facilities, reviewed roles, and outlined pros and cons.5 By focusing on the amalgamation issue, issues relating to any cooperative effort were revealed. In the end, the Committee agreed to six recommendations that suggested a philosophical stance and actions to be taken on future cooperative efforts.
A free-standing independent public library is the preferred choice of the Committee. However, when this is impossible, the Committee on School/public Library Cooperation recommends that informed community choice, based on the following recommendations, must be the deciding factor. (Introduction to Recommendations) Many combinations have been tried, as reported in the literature and experienced by Saskatchewan library people, and most have been found wanting. Both public library and school authorities agree that the combination has not successfully met the criteria for service expected by the institutions with their two distinctly different set of goals and roles. Under the Public Library Act and Regulations of Saskatchewan, the responsibility for the provision of public library service rests with:
The public library serves the cultural, educational, informational and recreational needs of the entire community from preschoolers to senior citizens. Its staffing, collections and services are designed to meet the needs of a widely diversified clientele whose participation and use are entirely voluntary. School populations are just one part of the total group of public library patrons. School libraries are administered under the Education Act and Regulations of Saskatchewan with the Board of Education of the School Division responsible for their operation. The primary responsibility of the school library is to the educational program of the school, the curriculum, the teachers, and the students. It is intended to be an integral part of the instructional system to teach students how to learn. The principal, teachers and the teacher-librarian share the responsibility for designing and implementing an effective program which integrates the library's resources and services with the curricular needs of the school. In addition to responding to teacher and student demands, it must also be in the forefront of educational change and innovation. Its staffing, collection and program are geared to serving a specific group of patrons engaged in specialized tasks, in a time schedule, and on a compulsory basis. Following advice from the local Board of Trustees, the Board of Education may enter into an agreement with another board, person or a municipality. The list of pros and cons relating to combined school and public libraries is heavily weighted on the cons side of the list (see attached Appendix A). This and the literature indicate that two independent libraries provide the most effective service to their clientele. However, attitude and desire can make a program successful despite overwhelming odds against it. If the desire is there, an amalgamation of public and school library will be attempted. Consequently, the Committee suggested that an "informed" community choice be the deciding factor. We emphasize informed because frequently the decision is made at a political level to justify cost-cutting and to save tax money. "Their potential for cost savings has made them politically popular even though, in many instances, a basic understanding of what is involved in their operation has been lacking".6
However, not only do library staff have to be involved in the decision, the whole community should be contacted and presented with the potential gains and the potential problems. "In some cases, there's a grassroots cry from a community for library service. In other cases, the library may identify the need. Either way, it's important to conduct a survey to make sure that the neighbourhood welcomes the library and is ready to use it."8 Educating the community, before the choice is made, includes identifying the potential operational issues. This issue becomes most important when considering housing a regional branch public library in a school that serves communities that are not participating in the regional library. What may be a cost savings on paper, could turn into an operational nightmare, devastating public relations (e.g. "The library turns away children") and a political hot potato. The Committee recommends: That S.L.T.A. encourage
full cooperation between public and school libraries in order to provide
the best library service in an efficient and cost effective manner to
the residents of Saskatchewan. Cooperation between jurisdictions is important. Beyond physical amalgamation, new technologies, programming and staff training opportunities give multiple opportunities to share costs and personnel. The number of ways to cooperate are limited only by imagination and attitude. While cooperation amongst libraries of all kinds is important, it is imperative that participants recognize each type of library mandate. Anything that impedes fulfilling each mandate results in failure to meet client needs and results in ineffective use of tax dollars.
In communities where municipal
facilities or services are not available to serve the community's need for
library services, S.L.T.A. recommends the use of the best possible
facilities, staffing and financing that can be obtained through
cooperation and collaboration as outlined in a written agreement. The
physical amalgamation of school and public libraries is not the primary
option. Public Libraries are not opposed to participation in joint facilities. Many public libraries, perhaps 30-40%, currently share facilities with other organizations. Examples include: Perdue is in a bowling alley and dance hall; Biggar shares a building with the Rural Municipality office and museum; La Ronge is in the town office; Paynton shares with a seniors' centre; Unity is in a health district,and town office complex; Moose Jaw shares with an art gallery and museum; Saskatoon has branches in recreational complexes; and the town of Tisdale is contemplating a multitype library under the name of a community library. The main difference between these situations and school-housed public libraries is that in the latter case, more than just a building is shared. Collections, staff, programs and policies are combined, but mandates differ.
Some libraries, such as the Wisewood Library in Buffalo Narrows, have reflected this uniqueness by creating a joint board with representatives from all political and educational participants and the community at large. The continued success of this and other cooperative projects rests on the foundation of documentation. "Handshake Agreements" last only as long as the people with the hands are living in the community and are willing to shake hands. Documentation provides a reference point for future staff and boards, although they do have to read it. The documentation begins with the community needs assessment. A written needs assessment of the entire
community should be the basis for the contemplation of a public library
that is housed in a school or jointly with another facility. Although this needs assessment is focused on the issue of housing the public library in the school, it must be written in an unbiased way. As well, the sample of the community must be broad enough to reflect the whole spectrum of community people. Single people and senior citizens in the community will not be included if a questionnaire is sent home with school children. The "entire community" does not mean everyone in town must participate, but the sample should be representative. One of the most essential documents is a written agreement which lays out the roles and responsibilities of the partners to the cooperative program or joint-use facility. The Committee recommends: That any agreement between constituents must be formalized and documents signed by all parties involved. These agreements should include:
Secure funding must be in place before any agreement is finalized. The agreement must be accompanied by a written community needs assessment and letters, motions and/or bylaws of support. (Recommendation #4 - Agreements) It is critical to have a clear articulation of the mandates, roles, responsibility, financial commitments and authorities of all parties involved. This will be used to resolve future conflicts and to express the basic philosophy of the joint venture. Any agency that is contemplating a joint facility with a public library is responsible for approaching the public library authorities:
It is also important to have the partner organizations agree to the document by passing supporting motions or bylaws and including a copy with the agreement records. These supporting documents are important when personnel change and a confusion about commitment arises. Each member organization will have to make a conscientious effort to review these documents on a regular basis. Although written documents do not guarantee the success of a school-housed public library, they provide a reminder of intentions and an orientation tool when personnel changes. For these reasons, the Committee also recommends: In all instances of co-operation between public libraries and any other institutions, the following criteria should be met:
This may seem like common sense, nevertheless, particularly in small towns where personalities are well known, agreements on small projects, such as access to library databases, are sometimes put into place based on an "understanding" between participants. In the "Vision" document, Independent but Together, it states:
Whether this is done through a school-housed public library or other cooperative projects, the goal of best serving clients' needs remains the focus. In doing our research, the Committee on School/Public Library Cooperation found enough examples of written agreements and policies on the issue of joint-use facilities to provide guidelines for those considering such an arrangement. However, the feasibility process for developing such an arrangement is not clear. Therefore, the Committee recommends: That a Committee be
established to prepare a planning document that the communities may use
when considering a combined School/Public Library. The school representatives are necessary to determine who should be asked what type of question at which political level in the education system. This input will provide the relevancy and support necessary to produce a useful and balanced document. Finally, "it is also worth mentioning one other prominent characteristic of the literature [on school-housed public libraries]: it reads like the story of Job. It resembles an endless chronicle of righteous endeavours undone by anticipated and undeserved calamities."12 Nevertheless, "combined libraries have enormous potential where planning with some expertise has preceded decision-making."13 We hope these recommendations will assist communities to develop that planning.
Lori Isinger
__________________________________________ 1. J. C. Dana, "Branch Libraries in School Houses", American Library Institute Papers and Proceedings (1911), pp. 16-20. 2. L.J. Amey, ed., The Canadian School-Housed Public Library (Halifax: Dalhousie University, 1979), p.1. 3. Independent but Together ([Regina]: Saskatchewan Library Association and Saskatchewan Library Trustees' Association, 1992), p.1. 4. Carol Carson, Minutes of the Annual General Meeting of the Saskatchewan Library Trustees' Association, Moose Jaw, SK., 7 November 1993. 5. Anyone interested in accessing material on this topic can request bibliographies and information from Saskatchewan Provincial Library through their local public library branch. 6. I.S. "Bud" Call, "Joint-use Libraries: Just How Good Are They?", C & RL News (Nov. 1993), p. 551. 7. Ibid., pp. 551-552. 8. Sally Kinsey and Sharon Honig-Bear, "Joint-use Libraries: More Bang for Your Bucks", Wilson Library Bulletin (November 1994), p. 38. 9. Interdepartmental Liaison Group on Library Development, Statement on the School-Housed Public Library, ([Edmonton]: Alberta Culture and Alberta Education,1986), p.8. 10. Call, p. 551. 11. Independent but Together, p.5. 12. L.J. Amey, ed., Combining Libraries: The Canadian and Australian Experience (Metuchen, N.J.: The Scarecrow Press, 1987), p. vii. 13. Ken Haycock, Prologue to The Canadian School-Housed Public Library, edited by L.J. Amey (Halifax: Dalhousee University Libraries, 1979), p. 10.
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||
