The Library Board met 05/14/2024. As an information item and as part of their trustee development training, they engaged in a discussion around an article entitled “An Exploratory Social Justice Framework to Develop Public Library Services with Underserved Families.”
This was the first part of what sounded like a two-part discussion. Library Board member Nan Bunnow indicated that at the next meeting they would discuss the connections between that article and the library’s current practices.
I’ve prepared a transcript of the discussion for download:
I will start out by plainly stating, I loathe articles like this. It is filled with tortuous attempts by the authors to sound educated and intellectual which they do by repeating themselves a lot and utilizing a multitude of buzzwords and trendy phrases. They also spent 8 pages introducing their findings when 1 and a half would have been more than sufficient. It’s 22 pages long, but it could have been half that if they had just made their various points once and cut back on all the faux-intellectual-speak.
The basic premise of the article is that libraries labor under the history of a “White-IST (white + elitist) legacy and cultural inheritance of racism (amongst other ‘-isms’ such as sexism, ableism, etc.) in the United States.” The article’s authors believe that history, along with a problematic focus on only providing information has led to librarians playing a minimal role in helping families (particularly low-income and disadvantages groups) overcome their “sociocultural, socioeconomic, and sociopolitical debilitating circumstances.”
[I really think the implications of moving the library away from focusing on providing neutral access to informational resources is something that the library trustees should perhaps give a little thought to. There are plenty of churches, political groups, advocacy groups, activist groups, and service groups that are focused on helping people overcome their “sociocultural, socioeconomic, and sociopolitical debilitating circumstances.” If you want to move the library into that realm also and away from its historical function of neutrally providing access to information, the trustees ought to be aware of the long-term impact that will have on the library because when you politicize an institution that began as a non-political entity there can be a lot of repercussions to that, particularly in terms of institutional trust and goodwill.]
The article authors conducted a “meta-analysis” of 20 case studies that all seem to have originated in a single book they themselves wrote entitled “A Librarian’s Guide to Engaging Families,” and they explained, “we limited our analyses to one book because there is a paucity of research on family engagement in public library settings.” [So this entire trustee development discussion was based on an article that was written about a book that the authors of the article also wrote on a subject that is so niche that nobody else has written about it in any depth.]
The authors defined those who were “underserved” by libraries as “those individuals,
groups, communities, and populations that are not adequately serviced by the library and impacted by its offerings and do not use the library services – or rarely use it.” They mention that these families might not be considered “underprivileged” but also note that in the past racial/ethnic minorities either were excluded or “felt excluded” from public libraries due to racism and white privilege.
The article’s authors wanted to promote “a system in which libraries share responsibility with families to guide and support student learning” and went on to explain this was a matter of equity, stating “Because family and community engagement has its greatest impact on families who are often the most underserved, family engagement is one of the most important ways to reduce inequalities and disparities that exist within our educational systems and communities.”
The authors go out of their way to criticize conservative parents and the efforts of conservative parent groups and right-wing media who they state “have called for the removal of more than 1,597 books about race, gender, and LGBTQ+ issues from public and school libraries.” [To my knowledge, the bulk of parental advocacy has been directed toward trying to remove pornographic content from school libraries (not for the most part public libraries) and placing safeguards around what content children (not adults) have access to.] The authors dismissed these efforts writing, “these efforts do not empower all parents; rather, they represent voices of a vocal minority fearing a loss of power and favor in this country.”
[I have a hard time believing that sort of negativity toward parents who have a legitimate interest in making sure their children are not being offered age-inappropriate materials would serve the Appleton Public Library well were they to follow the mind-set of the authors of this article. Additionally, the casual dismissal of the concerns of people who hold different political views also probably wouldn’t serve the library well, long-term, given that people with those political views make up a sizable portion of the population. If the library is legitimately seeking to increase the number of people it serves, engaging in petty political attacks would not further that end.]
Essentially, the authors of the article wanted libraries to become actively welcoming places through something called “targeted universalism” in which they provide information to everyone but give special attention to “those who are often neglected”.
My perception was that there was a somewhat strange disconnect in some of the things they advocated for. On the one hand, they seemed to be arguing that libraries should partner with parents and recognize that “parents are active, dynamic creators of learning experiences and possess the knowledge and expertise to contribute to the mission of libraries.” They advocated for “recognizing families as experts who bring their knowledge, talents and skills to improve library services.” At the same time, some of the examples they gave of potential library programming seemed a little arrogant and dismissive of the skills and expertise of parents, particularly low-income and immigrant parents.
- The Whitehall Public Library in Pennsylvania served refugees by creating parent-child workshops that “included conversations with local professionals about parent concerns such as nutrition and child development. Over time the library has become a hub where families can go to connect and feel safe.” [I’m baffled at the idea that one would assume refugees don’t have the skills to provide for the basic nutritional and developmental needs of their children and that for some reason the public library (rather than the local refugee resettlement organizations) needs to step in and fill that gap.]
- The Nashville Public Library “mobilizes its connections with community services to help homeless families improve their living conditions and engage more fully in their children’s learning.” [The very fact that that library feels the need to step in and help homeless parents suggests they don’t actually trust the expertise of those parents. Instead, they rightly see that, far from possessing expertise, these adults are failing in one of their basic responsibilities toward their children and the library is trying to step in and help get them on track.]
- The Nashville Public Library also “offers dinner in one of the branch libraries followed by Storytime, free books, and parenting information.” [Handing out free dinner, free books, and free parenting information is not something you do if you truly believe these parents are competent members of society who possess the expertise to manage their families.]
- The Brooklyn Public Library regularly holds a virtual video visit between children and incarcerated parents. “The children’s librarian and other staff begin the video visit with a children’s literacy activity – reading, singing, playing with a finger puppet – and family members interact in a setting that destigmatizes incarceration.” [Clearly a program crafted to help children connect in a more positive way with their incarcerated parents is not based on the idea that parents are experts but rather is based on the idea that these parents messed-up and the library should step in and try to ameliorate some of the damage.]
- The San Diego Public Library removed library fines because “Data collected indicated that fine policies largely affected low-income residents, the group who stood to gain the most from the library’s free educational resources.” [The foundational concept undergirding that action is that poor people are too irresponsible to return books on time.]
- The San Mateo County Library “channeled its resources to ensure equitable access by creating new early childhood programs with a strong family engagement focus, offering fine-free library cards for children and teens, and organizing a year-round free meal program in vulnerable community.” [Again, fine-free cards are something you give to someone you think is incapable of dealing with the responsibility that comes with a card that includes fines. Free meals are something you provide to people whom you believe are not competent enough to feed themselves. Inherent in the giving of free things is the belief that these people are not particularly expert at basic life functions.]
- In Tennessee, four regional library systems partnered with a university and “designed an online master’s degree program for resident library paraprofessionals to enable them to take leadership in addressing the needs and interests of rural communities.” They did this because, per the authors, “Rural libraries serve families that often find it difficult to find information that is timely, accurate, and relevant.” [The whole idea that librarians think rural people somehow have an extra difficult time going on the internet and finding current information is hilarious to me. Things like Starlink are making the internet more and more accessible in rural areas every day, and it seems like spending money to promote that is a more effective way to provide rural folk with access to current information rather than providing an online master’s degree program for library paraprofessionals.]
Every single one of these situations just seemed like the libraries in question were trying to fix problems for people who have messed up their lives or who the libraries think are incapable in some way, which is not the sort of programming I would expect if the libraries actually respected families or thought parents were experts.
The article included three pages of examples of library outreach programs that fit into their social justice framework.
Despite the fact that the article itself was filled with stuff that Norm MacDonald would have described as “commie gobbledygook”, the Library Board members seemed somewhat circumspect in their take-aways from the article.
Board member Nan Bunnow (who also serves as an Assistant Superintendent at AASD) lead the discussion. She said she liked the three social justice outcomes highlighted in the article and the focus on “access, inclusion, and engagement.”
Several of the members highlighted their appreciation for the idea of drawing on the expertise of parents, being responsive to parents, and working collaboratively with parents to plan library programs.
Board member Nancy Scheuerman said or parents, “They know what they need, and they’re the change agents.” She talked briefly about how advocacy by the parents of handicapped students had resulted in positive changes to special education.
Alderperson Katie Van Zeeland (District 5) appreciated the part that spoke about respecting family roles, saying “the library isn’t going over parents or going over family roles; you know, we’re respecting those and we’re folding those into our programming.”
Board member Rebecca Kellner felt that a lot of what was written in the article was things the library was already doing, and Ms. Bunnow indicated that they were going to talk about that specifically at their next meeting.
Board member Brian Looker was interested in learning more about that because the library had limited resources to try to find out who in the community was being underserved. He wondered what the Library Board could do to support that.
Ms. Scheuerman felt that when the library project was completed, the new building would be able to well serve as the sanctuary described on the bottom of page 18 of the article. “Libraries are for people. They offer a safe haven for quiet and relaxation for families living with the stresses of crowded homes, poor cooling and heating systems, and few resources. They are welcoming spaces to help build emotionally close parent-child relationships.”
Board member Lisa Nett thought it was important to remember that being underserved by the library did not necessarily mean a person was underprivileged. “If we’re really trying to build a library that is a community resource, it has to be offering lots of different things that are relevant to members of the community that may be at different life stages and different needs.”
She was also interested in the Brooklyn Library program serving families of incarcerated individuals. She said that in Wisconsin “88,000 children were impacted by parental incarceration.” She wondered if there was an opportunity there.
[Quite frankly, articles like this and the fact that the Library Trustees are seriously using it as part of their trustee development make the library seem off-putting and ridiculous. There is nothing wrong with “merely” providing free access to books, media, and other materials. The function of every single institution does not need to be directed toward social services. Sometimes it’s better to leave the social services to other entities and just offer people free access to books.]
View full meeting details and video here: https://cityofappleton.legistar.com/MeetingDetail.aspx?ID=1142257&GUID=FE435820-DAF4-424F-94FA-C2D09FB169CF
One thought on “Library Board Members Hold Trustee Development Discussion – Talk About “An Exploratory Social Justice Framework to Develop Public Library Services with Underserved Families””