Submissions to the Sieghart review from Desmond Clarke, CILIP and TLC are
available (together with various articles and blogs (once again mostly
courtesy of Frances Hendrix -thanks!) on the Local Government Library
Technology (LGLibTech) "Review of public libraries" page:
page
http://lglibtech.wikispaces.com/Review+of+Public+Libraries
It's useful to have this material in once place. If there are other
submissions that you know about that you'd like to add please feel free to
do so. The wiki is open to all for editing/adding content .
Ken
Ken Chad Consulting Ltd
Tel +44 (0)7788 727 845. Email: [log in to unmask]
www.kenchadconsulting.com
Skype: kenchadconsulting Twitter: @KenChad LinkedIn:
http://www.linkedin.com/in/kenchad
Local Government Library Technology wiki: http://lglibtech.wikispaces.com/
My presentations on slideshare: http://www.slideshare.net/kenchad
-----Original Message-----
From: lis-pub-libs: UK Public Libraries [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
On Behalf Of Laura Swaffield
Sent: 23 March 2014 19:04
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: so is life!
Thanks, Sue.
Y'all might like to see what The Library Campaign has told Sieghart...
Laura
WRITTEN EVIDENCE TO THE INDEPENDENT INQUIRY ON PUBLIC LIBRARIES IN ENGLAND,
FROM THE LIBRARY CAMPAIGN.
CONTACT: Laura Swaffield, Chair, [log in to unmask], 07914 491 145
====================================
THE LIBRARY CAMPAIGN
TLC, founded in 1984 and now a charity, is the sole national representative
of library users and Friends groups.
We liaise with the SCL and ACE, attempt to work with DCMS, and work with
CILIP, Unison, Campaign for the Book and Voices for the Library through the
Speak Up For Libraries coalition, holding well-attended annual conferences
and working on a national SUFL website of resources.
Our own website (www.librarycampaign.com) serves a large number of members
and non-members, eg by maintaining the only national list of library groups.
We also publish the only national magazine on public libraries. Back issues
can be downloaded from our website.
PREAMBLE
We look forward to meeting you personally.
We could expand at great length on any points we raise here. We know you
have received very many responses, and we know that panel members really do
not need us to spell out the basics. We have done so, just in case, in
APPENDIX 2.
We have made no secret of our view that yet another basic inquiry on public
libraries is not our chosen priority. Libraries have been in a state of
crisis for some time. It is now an emergency.
Nevertheless, we welcome the tight deadline you are working to and we
respect the expertise of the panel.
We are keen to help ensure that the real problems are addressed - and that
this time, action follows.
RECOMMENDATIONS
We are currently unsure whether the panel will be given all the evidence
collected to read in full.
If this is the case, we urge you to read our RECOMMENDATIONS.
SUMMARY
· What are the core principles of a public library into the future?
Numerous reports have addressed this question, many of which are listed at
http://www.publiclibrariesnews.com/useful/documents
Most have said roughly the same things. What has been lacking is any
sustained, coherent effort to put them into practice.
A short, comprehensive summary of the obvious points is the UNESCO Public
Library Manifesto, to which the UK is a signatory. It is illuminating to
compare its principles to the practice of the current government.
http://www.unesco.org/webworld/libraries/manifestos/libraman.html
* Is the current model of delivery the most comprehensive and
efficient?
The basic 'model' - services run by local authorities, backed up by national
resources and policy - has been flexible enough to take on every new
development - in delivery formats, in new social and demographic needs, in
national and local government priorities.
The problems have been fragmentation of responsibility, lack of money, lack
of publicity both local and national, and - especially recently - lack of
action by DCMS to provide any central leadership/advice/resources or even to
co-ordinate the large amount of good work being done by SCL, TRA, NLT and
individual library authorities.
Certain structural problems have been pointed out for decades, in particular
the waste created by having 151 separate library authorities. The evidence
sent to you by Desmond Clarke expresses all we would wish to say about this,
so we will not repeat it.
* What is the role of community libraries?
Any functioning local library is a community library. This 'heart of the
community' concept is constantly expressed by DCMS, ACE and everyone else.
If, however, the panel takes these words to mean 'volunteer'
libraries, we object in the strongest possible terms.
The word 'volunteer' is itself a cynical misnomer. Communities are forced to
attempt to run their own libraries by local authorities that refuse to offer
any alternative to wholesale closures. Many alternatives exist.
These libraries are proving to be a huge burden to carry. Their chances of
survival are very poor.
Every single one of these 'volunteer' groups has made it clear that what
they want is a proper professionally-run service. Every single one has
campaigned long and hard for this right, with strong public support. Their
formation represents a defeat for democracy and reasoned argument.
Above all - and we cannot stress this too highly - promoting them is the
worst conceivable way to attempt to make savings.
Their role is akin of that of food banks - they meet, inadequately, a need
that should never have been created.
SUMMARISED SUMMARY
Public libraries are uniquely trusted, well-loved, accessible, low-cost
centres for information, communication and recreation. They are infinitely
flexible and adaptable.
The model - outlined in many reports - is a national network of resources,
clearly defined and publicised, fully accessible at local level and
supplemented by extra services as required locally.
The meltdown in local library provision is already causing widespread
damage.
BACKGROUND
1. It is essential that the panel take on board the new financial reality,
which so far has been ignored by ACE and the DCMS.
2. The coalition government makes it clear that its aim is to reduce the
public sector permanently, and to impose escalating cuts for years to come.
Opposition plans are not much different.
The assumption seems to be that amateurs and volunteers have limitless
capacity to run much of what we call civic society. This is manifestly not
the case.
3. Local authorities are already subject to cuts of up to 50%, imposed at a
speed that has made it difficult to plan ways to minimise the damage.
Further documentation on this appears in Geoffrey Dron's evidence to the
panel.
Meanwhile we see deprivation and social exclusion at near-Victorian levels
in some areas, escalating the need for public resources such as libraries.
4. In public libraries, this comes on top of decades of salami-slicing,
often by unassertive library managers content to make do and mend and
unskilled in publicising their value.
Support and advocacy at national level have been inadequate.
Branch closures, cuts in expert staff, opening hours, stock quality,
building maintenance etc have already made libraries less accessible,
attractive and useful than they should be.
Many people already have no idea what it is to have a library that (a) is
accessible and (b) delivers a full service. (The general public, however,
can still clearly see libraries' obvious importance and
potential.)
5. The current assault is therefore on a service already dangerously
undermined.
In several local authorities, the public library landscape has already
suffered damage on an unprecedented scale. In others, it survives but
quality issues threaten its future. In still others, it survives or even
thrives.
Basic research is badly needed to find out why/how some services cope and
others do not.
DCMS
6. The libraries minister is the crux of the problem now. He is in clear
breach of all his statutory duties (to 'superintend, and promote the
improvement of, the public library service... and to secure the proper
discharge by local authorities of the[ir] functions in relation to
libraries...).
7. Whatever the background situation, he could have done something to help
prevent the current crisis. The growing danger has been apparent for years.
Many immediate problems could be solved with no fundamental organisational
change at all.
8. One of the minister's few actions has been to abolish the ACL (his sole
source of independent advice on libraries). That he apparently did not know
it is a statutory requirement says much about the quality of advice he gets
from his civil servants.
As the emergency grew he appointed one part-time adviser (Yinnon Ezra)
- now gone. We have made repeated requests via FoI to be told what advice he
supplied, which have been refused.
At the time of the select committee inquiry into public library closures,
the minister was attempting to place his supervisory function with ACE -
which rightly declined. (The inability of ACE to carry out any proper work
on libraries - and the expensive, useless research that made its first 18
months a disastrous waste of time - are outlined in our evidence to the
select committee's current inquiry on the work of ACE.)
9. As a minimum, the minister should have had a coherent coping strategy,
with maximum sharing of resources and expertise and the promotion of ideas
for efficiencies. He could also co-ordinate, rationalise and promote
existing good development work.
10. The Universal Offers (devised not by DCMS or ACE but by SCL and
TRA) have even done the job for him - but they are scrabbling about to find
one-off grants to finance the necessary research, training and roll-out.
11. Instead he has moved from doing a bit, to doing nothing while denying
that there is any problem, to engaging in active sabotage.
We were staggered to see in October 2013 the exhortation on gov.uk to all
and sundry to have a go at running a library (we have found out via FoI that
the text was written by DCMS and DCLG, with no reference to ACE).
This was followed by an interview in the Telegraph hailing volunteer
libraries as the future because they are 'much cheaper' to run than council
libraries.
In essence he has presided over a fundamental change in the service, with no
research and no consultation.
12. He has been approached many times by local people alerting him (in
closely-argued detail) of planned changes that were clearly destructive. The
response has been nil.
13. Currently he purports (in his report to the Commons select
committee) not even to know how many closures (etc) have taken place.
This is inexcusable.
14. Disseminating a working definition of 'comprehensive and efficient'
would also save much wasted time and heartache. We assume DCMS has one, as
it must have some rationale for turning down constant appeals for
intervention at local level.
SCANDAL
15. It is hard to see how else to describe the current situation. On the
whole, only library users are speaking out on the value of public libraries,
and the importance of skilled staff in delivering a service adequate to the
need.
Yet users/frontline staff are routinely excluded from all consultations.
16. As just one national-level example, we repeatedly asked ACE to include
library users' views in its unnecessary and expensive 'Envisioning' report.
It refused.
17. At local level, we can give numerous examples of local authority
'consultations' that fail to reach many of those most concerned, ignore
their own findings, and refuse to consider alternative proposals for
savings. We can even give examples of local authorities that have played
tricks to ensure they receive only the answers they want.
18. Much of the work really needed is being done not by the bodies paid to
do it, but by others in their spare time, with or without a patchy
assortment of grants to support it.
As examples:
i. Publicising the value of libraries and librarians - done by local library
users, The Library Campaign, Unison (not ACE, DCMS or CILIP.)
ii. A national development framework (the Universal Offers), including
under-pinning research & staff training - developed by SCL and TRA (not ACE
or DCMS).
iii. A national information resource on public libraries - provided by one
librarian (Ian Anstice) in his spare time, using his small daughter's broken
laptop (not DCMS, ACE)
iv. An advice service for 'volunteer' libraries desperate for information
and support (over 130 of them so far) - Jim Brooks of Little Chalfont
Community Library, latterly with some funding from the Cabinet Office (not
DCMS or ACE).
The last is particularly astonishing. In May 2013, we sent the minister a
list of 23 very basic questions facing volunteer libraries that need an
agreed expert response (PLR, data protection, copyright, confidentiality etc
etc etc). See APPENDIX 1. (This list was meant to be a starter, to be
followed by proper research into the full needs of these libraries.) He
replied only after a reminder sent in October, and ignored all the
questions.
If he really believes volunteer libraries are worth having, it is incredible
that he does nothing at all to help them.
If he really believes they are a way to save money (we doubt this), it is
incredible that he leaves 151 individual library authorities floundering to
find their own solutions to common problems, ensuring maximum wasted energy
and minimum savings.
ACCESS
19. The over-riding core principle for public libraries is access.
This is a moral principle and a practical priority.
20. The development of e-services is one vital aspect. We appreciate that
the Sieghart report has made a start, and applaud the work of SCL in
beginning pilot work. But there is a crying need to develop national
infrastructure, standards and resources.
21.We assume we have no need to document the 'digital divide', which
libraries are well placed to address and which will disadvantage millions of
people for years to come - most probably for ever.
22. Buildings remain crucial. A library service is of course more than a
building, but for most users it starts with a building. (Indeed, unless
there is major change to current proposals on PLR and e-loans, even
e-services will be concentrated on downloading at library
buildings.)
23. Accessible local branches are needed now more than ever. We hardly need
to explain this. The Charteris/Wirral report has analysed the matter in
full.
Some obvious aspects include: poverty and over-crowded housing increase the
need for space and resources, literacy problems and the collapse of school
libraries make pre-school and school visits increasingly important, high
fares and (often) poor public transport make travel to distant branches
near-impossible, many millions of people have no internet access while
government moves to make resources (including benefits) online-only...
Meanwhile, thanks to the internet the smallest branch can now offer a vast
range of material (if expert support is available, that is).
24. Local branches are cheap to run, universally trusted, and can take on a
huge range of useful functions. Closing them, or dumping them on to
'volunteers', saves little or no money. Given the social, economic and
educational damage it causes, any small savings are worthless.
25. It is quite obvious that there are better ways to make savings -
notably, promoting co-operation between library authorities and curbing
excessive spending elsewhere within councils, including expensive central
services, outsourced contracts and consultants. This is, overall, the most
important point we wish to make in this evidence.
BLACKMAIL
26. Much of what we say could be expanded with details, references and
examples. We will focus on one area where we have special expertise -
'volunteer' libraries.
27. Those who run them universally feel they have been blackmailed into
doing so. They are given only one choice - to see a branch library closed
and the building lost for ever, or to try to keep it going until sanity
returns.
28. Those who run them universally say that they really want a
professionally-run service, and that what they can provide is very much
second-best.
29. Those who run them are finding the task overwhelming. The workload is
enormous. It is very difficult to find enough volunteers, let alone expert
and reliable ones. Local spats and factions are a common problem. If they
can find funding at all, it is by cannibalising resources that should be
used for many other purposes, from parish council funds to assorted grants
to citizens' own pockets and time.
30. It is obvious that such libraries have little chance except in
communities that are affluent, skilled and largely retired. They have least
chance in the deprived communities that need libraries most.
31. Those who run them say they fear that if they manage to make a go of the
enterprise - no matter how inadequately - this will be cynically used as
justification for a policy of closures/dumping that they passionately
oppose. This, again, is blackmail.
32. The little experience there is shows that volunteer libraries cannot
survive at all without considerable council support. Most current plans for
volunteer take-over include a little financial support for a couple of years
- with nothing said about ensuing years.
We predict widespread collapse at this point.
33. ACE's sole contribution to this unfolding disaster is the much-ridiculed
report on 'Community libraries' issued early last year.
This was an uncritical head-count (already well out of date at the time of
publication) of a disparate collection of volunteer libraries, some yet to
begin functioning, sorted into vague types, with no evaluation of what might
work, or how, or what quality of service ensues, or what the usage is, and
accompanied by 'guidance' that is so obvious as to be asinine. Both TLC and
CILIP have repeatedly asked ACE to provide the raw data collected, as we
cannot believe the findings.
The ACE report came at the same time as one from the National Institute of
Women's Institutes, revealing - from experience - severe deficiencies in the
support offered to volunteers, and asserting that they must not be used as
'sticking plaster' to hide gaps in the service.
34. We could supply many quotes to support all these points.
Meanwhile, local people are aware that all pay the same council tax - but
some get a proper library service, others have to fund and run the service
themselves.
In a dire emergency, with retired professionals, communities might be able
to bodge together makeshift schools, medical services, courts, dad's armies
and so on. We see volunteer libraries in the same light.
WASTE
35. A particularly tragic aspect of the current situation is the failure -
over many years - to make proper use of a huge amount of research and
development work.
36. A full list would be impossibly long to compile.
As random examples:
i. The National Literacy Trust has twice run a Year of Literacy that
included research, development work and successful publicity. The most
recent Year signed up 2m new library members via a promotion in the Sun. In
each case, the work has been abandoned.
ii. TRA developed the Love Libraries campaign, with a busy website,
celebrity support, promotional materials, annual awards, constant press
cover etc. This had gained a great deal of momentum when it was 'taken over'
by MLA - and simply killed off.
iii. TRA developed an easy-to-use matrix for children's services to
checklist what they provide, identify the gaps and plan improvements.
This was not promoted.
iv. The DCMS's own Public Library Standards (with compliance monitored and
publicised by DCMS) achieved big improvements nationwide - without breaking
councils' budgets. They are much missed by library users and staff. Similar
standards still exist in Wales and Scotland. Coupled with coherent national
marketing, they have demonstrably contributed to better usage of the
service.
v. The MLA website, although difficult to search, contained a wealth of
information, case stories and advice. Under ACE, it has disappeared.
vi. The Summer Reading Challenge, rolled out nationally, has been a huge
success at minimal cost. Many other such projects are ready to go.
RECOMMENDATIONS
37. The above list is a brief indication of the wealth of research and
proven initiatives that could be re-visited, revived and promoted to help
with some of the damage caused by government cuts and DCMS inaction.
38. Just for starters, and as a stop-gap pending proper work on the basic
structural problems, we recommend:
i. An expert panel to develop a coherent policy, guidelines on common issues
and a day-to-day practical advice service for councils trying to understand
what library services could do, and how to make cuts with minimal damage to
the service.
(NB: We are very reluctant to suggest similar support for volunteer
libraries - although they clearly need it - because we are against them.
Those who run them want them to function only as a stop-gap to stabilise
provision until it can be restored in full.)
ii. Basic research is urgently needed on libraries' future that actually
includes what we know is happening - mass closures, local authorities
reduced to a few basic functions, professional qualifications/posts much
diluted, reliance on unregulated volunteer outposts.
Priority topics might include:
- whether volunteer libraries save any money at all, and their effects on
usage, quality etc.
(We already have evidence that usage often declines sharply, the library
function is diminished and other community activities
(understandably) dominate.
- research into how certain authorities (eg, Lancs, Southwark,
Lambeth) have managed to avoid closures/reduced services
- follow-up research on the Future Libraries pilots, which had yielded no
clear benefits when last evaluated by MLA (and several of which have since
collapsed - why?)
iii. A checklist should be compiled listing what a proper library service
provides - expert staff, appropriate stock, digital support, convenient
hours and premises, outreach work, access to national resources etc etc.
This would be ticked by both council and voluntary libraries - keeping alive
understanding of libraries' full functions, and providing a ready-made list
of the gaps that must be re-filled.
iv. A similar checklist should be compiled - and enforced - to ensure that
all library authorities are making full use of well-established ways to make
non-destructive savings (including - but by no means limited to - purchasing
consortia, common standards for digital infrastructure, NAG's common
standards for book processing, e-invoicing, shared back office functions,
full use of existing resources for book promotion, digital marketing and
outreach).
v. A searchable database of research results, reference material, advice,
proven pilot schemes, good practice, bright ideas for promotions, guidance
on common problems. Etc. Given the huge resource achieved by
www.publiclibrariesnews.com with no support at all, this should be easy.
vi. LGA should appoint full-time advisers on library efficiency, service
sharing etc, as it already does for other local authority services. (Some
authorities lack the expertise to negotiate innovations and can be very
naïve - especially with IT and other outside contractors. The same problem
has arisen with PFIs.)
vii. There should be a national campaign to publicise libraries.
Research has repeatedly shown that most non-users are amazed to find out
what is already provided even by the most run-of-the-mill library services.
viii. There should be - as a matter of particular urgency -
nationally-produced materials to explain libraries' role to councillors, and
their crucial relevance to councils' own priorities (including - but again
by no means limited to - education, public health, employment, community
cohesion, crime prevention, economic growth, regeneration, support for
benefits claimants, use of councils'
own digital service delivery routes...)
ix. DCMS should actively promote the value of public libraries to delivering
the priorities of central government departments including (and again not
limited to) health, jobsearch, education, literacy, digital literacy/access,
citizenship, benefits system.
Despite the minister's repeated promises to do this, it is only too apparent
that most government departments are quite unaware that their own plans are
being severely undermined by failing delivery at ground level.
x. There should be proper, regular analysis of the CIPFA figures - in
particular to find out what works and what doesn't, by comparing different
authorities. Much effort goes into collecting them, to little purpose. Past
analysis was confined to national trends - thus failing to capitalise on the
wealth of material available for comparisons. And even this was dropped by
MLA.
APPENDIX 1
BASIC STARTER LIST OF PRACTICAL ISSUES FACING VOLUNTEER LIBRARIES 1. Need
for proper access to/analysis of CIPFA figures.
2. PLR (relationship to national system, possible extra costs to
non-statutory libraries, etc).
3. Real implications of /requirements under legislation covering health &
safety, equalities, human rights, TUPE, copyright (eg, photocopying),
licensing for events/music/films/alcohol, data protection. Etc.
4. Insurance
5. Protection of children & vulnerable adults, CRB etc.
6. Handling cash/security.
7. RFID.
8. LMS - small individual or linked to council system.
9. IT systems - as above.
10. Access to borough/national catalogues & inter-library loans.
11. Status of the Universal Offers & other national reading schemes, eg
Summer Reading Challenge.
12. Ability to help with online benefit claims, job applications etc (IT
provision, staff training, ethics/legality of volunteers handling personal
information).
13. Access to national schemes like the Reference Online discount deal.
14. Access to reading group sets, music & playsets.
15. Training required to deal with all the above.
16. Organisational kit - draft constitution etc.
17. Volunteer policy.
18. General advice on funding/sustainability.
19. Safeguards for communities that can't run their own library.
20. Guidance on support that is needed by volunteers.
21. Advice on which general model to adopt in running a "community" service.
22. Stock management (eg, dealing with additions, exchanges and withdrawals
for stock provided by the library authority).
23. Not least, numerous health & professional issues for trained staff
having to train/work with large numbers of untrained staff.
APPENDIX 2
APPENDIX 2 - LOCAL LIBRARIES: A BRIEF STATEMENT OF THE OBVIOUS 1. The
Charteris report includes a practical, updated checklist for authorities
planning changes. It takes into account relevant legislation passed since
1964 (e.g, on equality). Especially valuable is its work in defining the
duty under S7(2)a of the 1964b Act that 'a library authority shall in
particular have regard to the desirability... of securing... facilities...
to meet the general requirements and any special requirements both of adults
and children'. The report's recommendations made it clear that the most
vulnerable people must be considered in this context.
2. S7a of The 1964 Act requires a comprehensive & efficient service to be
available to:
'all persons desiring to make use thereof [or at least]... those whose
residence or place of work is within the library area of the authority or
who are undergoing full-time education within that area' [including
provision of] 'such buildings... as may be requisite'.
S7b also specifies a duty of 'encouraging both adults and children to make
full use of the library service'.
It is not encouraging if the nearest library becomes a bus ride (or
two) away. Also, if it is a large, shiny 'centre of excellence' it is likely
to be intimidating. Offering a 'better' service in a remote building does
not meet the needs of all residents.
3. The DCMS website in 2008 (ie immediately after the abolition of official
Public Library Standards) said: 'The closure of one or even a small number
of library branches is not necessarily a breach of the
1964 Act. Sometimes a local authority will close a library to ensure a
better, more efficient service across its whole area. We judge such cases on
the basis of the authority's overall provision.
'We would be concerned if libraries were closed, or their services
disproportionately reduced, just to save money.'
4. Those who need a library most are the least likely to be able to travel
to a more distant branch. Numerous real-life examples are quoted in the
Charteris report. The Charteris report specifically rejected Wirral's
argument that providing a service in far fewer buildings would be
'efficient' - since this would really consist simply of transferring time
and costs to vulnerable people denied their local service.
5. To repeat: a library service cannot be comprehensive if it is more or
less unavailable to some residents. Nor is this 'efficient' in any
acceptable sense. NB: The current trend to 'save' some libraries by reducing
services and/or turning them over to volunteers creates a two-tier service,
which is similarly unacceptable under the Act.
6. Children and young families are very heavy users of public libraries, as
are the elderly, the unemployed, and many other people who cannot access
quiet study space, or find or buy all the books they could benefit from, or
acquire the infrastructure and expertise needed to use the internet.
7. Fares are expensive (and rising). It is absurd to expect elderly or
disabled people, or mothers with push-chairs, to travel to a distant
library, or a school to take classes to visit a library miles away, or
children to head off in the dark to find a homework space after school. (In
many deprived boroughs, the study spaces are packed.)
8. Public libraries are already being used much more as recession, poverty
and unemployment loom. The current government aims to make 80% of benefits
available only online. The needs of the most vulnerable are obviously set to
increase.
9. Many people still can't afford broadband, or any e-connection at all.
Even if they could, they would be unable to use it without the help of the
staff - whom they can fully trust as they cannot (in other
places) trust sales staff or public service 'official' types.
10. Similarly, properly trained staff at the library are a gateway to all
kinds of information, and to online resources in general, that people need
(or would enjoy) but don't know how to find. This guidance cannot be given
remotely to everyone. Least of all to those who most need help.
11. Trained staff can also inculcate the badly-neglected skills of
'information literacy' - sorting out the good information from the dangerous
rubbish. Government needs to focus more on this, instead of being
preoccupied with the distribution of hardware.
12. It is ironic, then, that some local authorities are trying to close
accessible local buildings just when the internet enables each one of them
to offer a vast range of information and entertainment - and certainly
everything that is available online at the large central libraries.
13. There is more. As we learned with the disastrous Beeching cuts, small
local outposts are feeders to the larger centres. Those who take the first
step at a familiar, convenient local building will be encouraged to seek
wider cultural and educational experiences of all kinds. The first step
should be made easier, not more difficult.
14. This is especially relevant as the UK slips further down the
international literacy tables - with reading for pleasure identified as a
key route to literacy, and one in which the UK is particularly deficient.
Public libraries do excellent work in this area with pre-schoolers,
schoolchildren and - especially - adults.
15. Libraries are a safe, quiet, sociable place for people whose homes do
not offer such luxuries. As they attract all ages, classes, races, they
provide a unique space to experience other kinds of people, and indeed to
practise the basic rules of negotiating and sharing resources, sharing
space.
16. Current research also underlines the fact that public services are more
than just a means to deliver goods to the individual, isolated consumer.
They embody sharing, civic qualities that we badly need to reinforce to
build social capital, mutual respect, community engagement, citizenship,
social cohesion, co-operation, personal responsibility. In many areas the
public library is the last public building left.
17. To a great extent - a library service is a building. (Obviously some
rationalisation may be desirable, but closures must be the last resort, not
the first).
18. It is not difficult to appreciate the effects of closing a local
community library.
19. Yet these smaller libraries are, properly viewed, a resource of huge
potential. Excessive closures have already damaged this potential
- but there is still (just) a huge network of easily-reached local drop-in
centres that can be of use to any agency. (When the NHS launched Patient
Choice, they were going to build a network of local kiosks - until somebody
pointed out the whole thing is already set up in libraries. Extrapolate that
principle and see the possibilities...)
On 3/23/14, Sue Lawson <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> Here's an interesting submission from Common Futures This is the
> summary from their blog at www.commonfutures.eu
>
> Third Spaces - locally rooted social capital factories, accessible to
> and welcoming of all, that bridge the online/offline divide and
> encourage literacy as well as STEAM skills development to nurture
> contemporary creative endeavour.
> Read/Write Oriented - facilitating the consumption, production and
> re-mixing of information, knowledge and know-how (including, data).
> A National Library Service underpinned by an Open, Enabling ICT
> Infrastructure - to facilitate access to information, knowledge and
> know-how on an anytime/anywhere basis.
> Enterprising Local-by-Default Library Services responsive to User
> Needs and Interests - to nurture digital inclusion as well asaccess
> to/production and re-mixing of information, knowledge and know-how in
> a trusted and supportive environment.
> A Locus for Citizen Interaction with Contemporary Culture, Public
> Services, Community Activities, Open Government and E-Democracy.
> The full submission is available here
> http://commonfutures.eu/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Common-Futures-Resp
> onse-to-Sieghart-Commission-EXT.pdf
>
> Sue Lawson
>
>
>
>> On 23 Mar 2014, at 11:38, Frances Hendrix
>> <[log in to unmask]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> THE BOOKSELLER : 21st March
>> Sieghart submissions highlight library 'lottery'
>> http://www.thebookseller.com/news/sieghart-submissions-highlight-libr
>> ary-lottery.html
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Frances Hendrix
>> Martin House Farm, Hilltop Lane, Whittle le Woods, Chorley, Lancs,
>> PR6 7QR
>> Tel: 01257 274 833. Mobile: 0777 55 888 03
>>
>
|
