AASL Chapters Forum

  • Private Community
 View Only
last person joined: 9 months ago 

Membership in the AASL Chapters Forum is open to all and may include the state-level school library association’s president/chair, other officers, conference chair, etc. Past Delegates and other interested stakeholders from the association may join the forum. This space provides an opportunity to share, discuss and ask questions from chapter colleagues across the country.

  • 1.  Has your state seen things like this?

    Posted Jan 13, 2024 05:12 PM
      |   view attached

    One of our state board of education members is proposing this change to our library requirements in early February. Some of this sounds so familiar that I believe it has to have been attempted or even changed in other states. I would love your feedback on concerns, experiences, and similiarities that you see.

    The normal text and strike outs are what is currently in the Rule. The underlined text is what he is proposing adding. I hope this helps, and thank you in advance for your help!



    ------------------------------
    Mandy Peterson
    Library Media Specialist
    Shelby Rising City Public School District
    She/Her/Hers
    ------------------------------

    Attachment(s)

    pdf
    Library-Media-Technology-Rule.pdf   141 KB 1 version


  • 2.  RE: Has your state seen things like this?

    Posted Jan 15, 2024 10:50 PM
    So in Washington we're having a long, long conversation about what "qualified staff" means, so I rather like the first new language around "qualified staff" meeting the instructional needs of students.

    The second paragraph seems fairly anodine as well; removing the requirement to have an encyclopedia makes sense, and I like the reference to a "balanced collection" in this era where everything seems to be digital or nothing at all.

    The third paragraph is absolute nonsense.  I could see how you might want to remove language from state law about how many new titles a library should get per year, but striking that entire section to replace it with culture war horsehit about sexualized content is ridiculous.  Their definition on the top of page 2 isn't any better, and has absolutely dick-all to do with what we think about when we develop a library collection.  I also have warning bells going off about the paragraph on page 2 about the "age-appropriate nature" of the collection; that's the stick that's going to be used to whip you guys more than the sexually explicit materials language, because that's what the Moms for Liberty crowd is going to use to say that From Archie to Zach isn't appropriate.

    Just my thoughts,

    --Ryan Grant--
    Legislative Committee Chair
    Washington Library Association

    =======================================================
    Ryan Grant, School Librarian (he/him/his)
    Alternative Learning K-8 Connect+ Teacher
    Medical Lake School District

    Library Phone: (509) 565-3622
    Connect+ Phone: (509) 565-3665
    Cell Phone: (509) 951-1290





  • 3.  RE: Has your state seen things like this?

    Posted Jan 16, 2024 06:42 AM

    Hi Mandy,

    We have not had legislation like this in Michigan - but, I'm wondering if you have reached out to the Office of Intellectual Freedom and/or the Chapters Relations Office.

    They would be able to support you with knowing what other states have faced legislation similar to this and some possible ways to advocate against the portion of the bill prohibiting "sexualized content" etc.  I agree with Ryan's concern.  In addition, the phrase "considering the youngest age of students with access to the material," is problematic.

    -Kathy Lester



    ------------------------------
    Kathy Lester, MLIS, MA
    AASL Immediate Past President, 2023-2024
    ALA Councilor At Large, 2021-2024
    ALA Committee on Legislation Member
    MASL Advocacy Chair, Past-President 2014
    School Librarian
    kathylester.lib@gmail.com
    kathyL@mimasl.org
    Twitter: @LibraryL
    ------------------------------