[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by Harmon

What I'm suggesting is that libraries, as we have known them, are obsolete.

Originally Posted by meeera

I've realised that you've said that, I've just seen no convincing evidence. Libraries, around here at least, remain very busy indeed.

This may be a difference of observation based on location. Libraries in large cities in the U.S. are part of a different social and political dynamic than libraries in Australia. Libraries in rural areas in the U.S. are also serving a different purpose than inner-city libraries.

Originally Posted by Harmon

Lack of school libraries? Why is that? We spend tons of money on schools - but there's no money for libraries?

Both of my kids attended middle and high schools with no libraries. This is in large cities in California; school libraries are often just not part of the budget for grades above the "learn to read" level, especially with smaller schools and charter schools.

Serious readers who read 30 books a month? Let them fund it themselves. Anyone with that kind of habit should be willing to get a second job to support it. Why should we provide such people with libraries?

Because they grow up to be well-educated and driven to understand all aspects of their careers, if their inclination toward absorbing knowledge isn't stifled by lack of resources.

By that logic, anyone who wants an education can pay for it; why should the public support all those slackers in high school who're never going to have jobs more complex than janitor or barrista?

The U.S. educational system--and libraries are part of that--is built on the premise that we all benefit from open access to knowledge. If libraries aren't being used enough to justify their costs, they need to be adjusted to provide access to the knowledge that most people need now. They may have more computers and fewer books in the future, but that doesn't mean libraries are meaningless in the 21st century.

How do I expect schools to teach reading? Phonics. How come that stopped working? Worked fine when I was a kid. Maria Montessori could teach retarded children to read - so what's the problem?
http://www.montessoriworld.org/Readi.../overview.html

The Montessori method--which I love--requires a lot more funding that US public schools allow. It hinges on, among other details, small enough class sizes that each child can get individual attention. While I'd love to see it or something like it become the standard for early education, that would require a lot more funding than libraries.

Libraries are obsolete. I can tell you when that dawned on me - way back in the 90s. In 1991, the Chicago Public Library system built a huge, dysfunctional central library downtown.

Chicago may not need a(nother) public library; Mt. Ida, Arkansas, does. Not every public library is a huge showy affair, meant to declare bureaucrats' support of "education" more than actually provide access to knowledge to the public.

Libraries are not for "free access to books." Libraries are curated repositories of culture; they're a way for communities to share knowledge and the framework of assumptions that make *this* knowledge more important and interesting than *that* knowledge. Libraries have never been about "we shall provide all books everywhere forever;" they're "these books are of interest to our local community," with "local" defined broadly.

If "books" are no longer the way most information is shared, then libraries should shift media focus;there's still plenty of need--more, perhaps, than in the past, when community identity was stronger--for the libraries themselves.