Children reading in England

[Quoth]

https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...uld-be-for-all

This is why the borrowable book is such an important part of the reading ecology. Yet libraries have long been in the frontline of cuts to public services, and those in schools have fared worst of all. While prisons in the UK are legally obliged to have libraries, primary schools are not. The result, according to one survey, is that one in seven have no library space at all. This disadvantage is skewed towards the north of England, where children’s reading attainment at 10 and 11 is already lower.

[graycyn]

Without libraries, school, city, and even church varieties, I probably would not be here.

My parents couldn't afford to keep up with my love of reading by buying me books, but they were all for me reading library books. My grandmother lent me her card, even after I had my own card, which I acquired in 3rd grade, so I could borrow double quantity.

Parental privileges are why I made the acquaintance of the Rabbi Small series by Harry Kemelman in a Catholic church at grade school age, LOL! Always have loved mysteries.

I hope that parents in the UK really lobby for their children's schools to provide some sort of library. It is important for children to have chances to pick out their reading. And in tough economic times, doubly important for books to be available to children. Surely there are people in England who would and could donate children's books to local schools, but are they aware that there is need?

I'm in the states, but I loved, loved, loved that both my grade school and high school had decent libraries. The tiny church library was not large, but I at least occasionally found something to intrigue me there as well.

Reading is so important. It develops vocabulary, helps kids learn writing and grammar, develops the brain, it's just a win to have kids reading.

[Wiggo]

It might not quite fit here, but at least it's about libraries.

The other day, out of stupidity, I ordered a good popular science book about the Stone Age twice. Instead of sending it back, I thought I could donate it to my public library (it was still shrink-wrapped).

When I handed it in, people made me feel like I would like to get rid of waste paper. After more than three months, it's still not in the catalogue.

I will never donate to them again.

[Kindleing]

Originally Posted by Wiggo

When I handed it in, people made me feel like I would like to get rid of waste paper. After more than three months, it's still not in the catalogue.

After we first moved to this area my wife decided to thin out her collection of writing reference books. These were good ones she had taken the trouble to move up here with us. She took them to the nearby small town library to see about donating them. She was told that donations are never shelved, they go on the $0.50 table at the annual book sale. Only books purchased by the library from the "approved" list are shelved.

My wife then took them to the local high school to see if they could use them. The high school happily took them to use as in-classroom supplemental material (these were reference books), but they would not be added to the library. But at least they were polite about it and were happy to distribute them to the appropriate teachers.

So if your library has used book sales as a fundraiser, next time check the tables and see if your book is there.

[olderTechnology]

Re: the last two comments, you really lowered the level of discourse here. Libraries are awesome, but they are NOT the place you go to donate books. I run a small church library, but this comment scales up: People will bring you all kinds of stuff, thinking they're doing you a favor. Whether new or used, it is a massive coincidence if your donation matches the library's ongoing book acquisition program. The best thing for them to do is sell your books and add the proceeds to their budget, while they go on building their collection based on their needs.

[twowheels]

Originally Posted by olderTechnology

Re: the last two comments, you really lowered the level of discourse here.

In my opinion, this is what lowered the level of discourse, not the prior comments. It is possible to disagree with somebody in a much friendlier manner than that -- not everybody knows the inner workings of their library, even if they use it frequently.

Back to the original topic -- while I didn't grow up in England, I also found the library to be instrumental in my upbringing. My parents are not readers and actually objected to how much I used to read, so without libraries I would have been without and I used to read about a wide variety of topics that were not taught in the normal course of the school day -- geology, astronomy, paleontology, etc, as well as devouring most of the sci-fi books that they had too.

[Ned]

Reading the above, I wonder if the people running the libraries and setting the acquisition programs from which they will not deviate under any circumstances, are right about everything else in life as well?

But me too, all I had as a kid were public libraries.
Looking now at my local public library, it's all changed. A ragtag assortment of battered books, plenty of PCs and that's your lot. What chance do kids stand of developing a reading habit or an inquisitive mind?

[Fiat_Lux]

Originally Posted by olderTechnology

Re: the last two comments, you really lowered the level of discourse here. Libraries are awesome, but they are NOT the place you go to donate books.

If the library is an archival library, donations related to their specific field are welcome, and will be added to stacks. However, the caveat is that these libraries will sell or give away duplicated material.
I remember one such discussion about whether to keep the pristine first edition, or the almost pristine signed by the author first edition. In the end, they sold both copies, on the grounds that the reader copy first edition that was littered with notes that the former owners made, was going to be more useful for future researchers.

Historical societies, and museums that focus on local (village or county) history, are far more inclined to accept book donations, and add them to their collection, if the material is related to the village or county, or people or places connected with either the village or the county.
I remember one local museum having a huge collection of romance novels in their stacks. The justification was that they were written by a local author, and would be needed for a proposed "local author museum" in twenty or so years time, when it would be a tourist landmark.

[Fiat_Lux]

Originally Posted by Ned

Reading the above, I wonder if the people running the libraries and setting the acquisition programs from which they will not deviate under any circumstances, are right about everything else in life as well?

It isn't about being right or wrong. It is about the library budget, and how much the donated books will cost them, if they do shelve them. A formal policy of "all donated books will be sold", means less wasted time and money, justifying why a book is on their shelves.

Ponder on having to create a fifteen slide Powerpoint presentation on why _Mein Kamp_ is not on the bookshelf, but _The Secret Book_ is.
Along the way, explain why the second book is not nearly as objectionable as the first, despite it being more explicit in how to accomplish those long term objectives.

Looking now at my local public library, it's all changed. A ragtag assortment of battered books, plenty of PCs and that's your lot.

Starting fifteen or twenty years ago, libraries started _renting_ books. The theory was that it would be cheaper to rent the current NY Times top 20 books, than buy them. The practice turned out that older NY Times top 20 books are no longer in the library, and the current NY Times top 20 are battered because they are read by so many people.

The PCs are because libraries are trying to adapt to a digital age. Unfortunately, that adaption is wiping out budgets to the point that hard copy material is short-term usage only.

What chance do kids stand of developing a reading habit or an inquisitive mind?

A reading habit develops at home, not at school, and not at the library.
With schools abandoning teaching the three Rs,(^1) it literally is up to the parents to not only teach the child how to read, but to develop a reading habit.

Now wondering if the hypothesis that a 500+ home library increases the reading level of a child by more than one grade, holds true when the books are in a digital format, rather than dead tree format.

^1: In both California and Utah, schools expect that a child entering first grade can fluently read and write English, and do basic arithmetic.
_Sesame Street_ and _Schoolhouse Rock_ were, and if still on the air, are the primary teachers of the 3 Rs in North America.

[fathead]

From the library staff side of the desk, it is difficult to politely decline several mouldering boxes of twenty year old paperbacks from (insert deceased relative's name here) shed/attic without giving offence. However, a few unpleasant surprises have taught me to harden my heart and just say no, thanks.

[issybird]

Originally Posted by fathead

From the library staff side of the desk, it is difficult to politely decline several mouldering boxes of twenty year old paperbacks from (insert deceased relative's name here) shed/attic without giving offence. However, a few unpleasant surprises have taught me to harden my heart and just say no, thanks.

I read a telling post on the neighborhood Facebook page; someone who is moving wanted to get rid of all her books in one trip. I couldn't resist responding that most used books are valueless and pleading with her not to foist her trash on a not-for-profit for them to get rid of. Donations should be cherry picked.

It's always amazing to me the value people put on things they no longer want. You don't want them; why assume anyone else would? I suspect there's a large element of doublethink in these "donations"; people know if they examined the issue that they'd have to acknowledge they're really just playing hot potato with their junk.

[ZodWallop]

Originally Posted by issybird

It's always amazing to me the value people put on things they no longer want. You don't want them; why assume anyone else would? I suspect there's a large element of doublethink in these "donations"; people know if they examined the issue that they'd have to acknowledge they're really just playing hot potato with their junk.

I understand that people put an inherent value in books and the thought of throwing them in the trash is repellent to many people.

Old books do become a problem and I don't think it is a non-profit's job to take in a bunch of junk to soothe people's feelings.

But I do think the donors genuinely believe they are doing a good thing when they donate books.

[issybird]

Originally Posted by ZodWallop

But I do think the donors genuinely believe they are doing a good thing when they donate books.

That's where the doublethink comes in. I think donors are careful not to question their assumptions when it comes to offloading what has become a problem for them. Changing, "Someone will want this" to "Who is going to want this?" would make a huge difference, but leaves the "donor" with their original problem.

It's an undeserved win-win for such donors; they get rid of what they don't value and pat themselves on the back for their generosity at the same time. The reality is that it's much closer to a zero-sum; their gain becomes someone else's loss.

The cold truth is that a lot of places that accept donations insist on checking them in because the disposal costs of what they can't unload for any price create a net loss. And face it, a lot of donations are of the "dump and run" type. They know.

[andyh2000]

Originally Posted by issybird

...
It's always amazing to me the value people put on things they no longer want. You don't want them; why assume anyone else would? I suspect there's a large element of doublethink in these "donations"; people know if they examined the issue that they'd have to acknowledge they're really just playing hot potato with their junk.

I think that's being a bit harsh on people who do read books but can't/don't want to keep them

Originally Posted by ZodWallop

I understand that people put an inherent value in books and the thought of throwing them in the trash is repellent to many people.
...

Exactly. If you value books and reading then it's painful to think of them being thrown away when you know that some people have access to very few or no books at all. We've recently been landed with a hoard of paperbacks and after finding out that charity shops really don't want them nowadays we've reluctantly earmarked most for recycling and some I've been taking in batches to our nearest book swap (little free library) locations. At least they seem to disappear from there quick enough so someone's getting some use from them.

Andrew

[DNSB]

Originally Posted by andyh2000

Exactly. If you value books and reading then it's painful to think of them being thrown away when you know that some people have access to very few or no books at all. We've recently been landed with a hoard of paperbacks and after finding out that charity shops really don't want them nowadays we've reluctantly earmarked most for recycling and some I've been taking in batches to our nearest book swap (little free library) locations. At least they seem to disappear from there quick enough so someone's getting some use from them.

We have three of little library boxes in our area and I have made several trips to get rid of some books there though at 30 books per trip, it's going to take a long time to made a dent in our collection. Sadly, I have to agree that unless the book you are donating is currently on several best sellers lists, it has more value as kindling for the fireplace.