Week 4: Fixed vs. Flexible Scheduling

Hurley, C. (2004). Fixed vs. Flexible scheduling in school library media centers: A continuing debate. Library Media Connection, 23 (3), 36-41.

Focus Quote:
"Johnson's article runs counter to generally accepted ideas reflected in library literature. He focuses on five arguments in favor of fixed scheduling (see sidebar on page 39), the most important of which is that "you can't teach kids you don't see." For Johnson, giving some kids great library skills (kids whose classroom teachers are open to collaborative efforts), and other kids no skills (kids whose classroom teachers are not open to such efforts) is simply not acceptable." (Hurley, 2004)

This week the focus of our class readings was collaboration.  Since I am not very familiar with elementary school library practices, I decided to read the article by Christine A. Hurley on fixed and flexible scheduling.  According to Hurley (2004), flexible scheduling, despite ALA/AASL support, is still widely used in many school libraries, especially those at the elementary level.  Furthermore, there is still much debate among school librarians over which is the best method.

Doug Johnson, Director of Media and Technology for Mankato Public Schools, sparked this debate in October of 2001 when he wrote an article for School Library Journal titled "It's Good to Be Inflexible," in which he argued in favor of fixed scheduling.  Referring to this article, Hurley states, "Johnson's article runs counter to generally accepted ideas reflected in library literature. He focuses on five arguments in favor of fixed scheduling...the most important of which is that "you can't teach kids you don't see." For Johnson, giving some kids great library skills (kids whose classroom teachers are open to collaborative efforts), and other kids no skills (kids whose classroom teachers are not open to such efforts) is simply not acceptable." (Hurley, 2004)

This quote resonated with me because it reminded me of the blog post I wrote for the first week of class on critical inquiry.  In my post, I discussed how I agreed that critical inquiry should be part of library instruction, but could not foresee many teachers giving up class time for it due to the many standards they are already trying to cover within their own subjects.  Now, after reading Doug's arguments, I wonder if fixed scheduling could be used to make time for critical inquiry?  Plus, I do think he has a point in that we can't give skills we never see.  In my own experience as a teacher, I know there were definitely some teachers who never used the library except to give their students free days to play computer games.

On the other hand, I can see the value in flexible scheduling.  It does make sense that library instruction should coincide with student/teacher needs.  Additionally, this flexibility gives school librarians and teachers the opportunity to collaborate before instruction occurs.  One of the major complaints I hear from elementary school librarians is that they find if very difficult to find time to meet with teachers in order to collaborate because they are busy with students during the teacher's planning period.

Clearly, this is a problem that will not be going away any time soon especially given the fact that many elementary schools would have to hire more teachers in order to provide both planning time for teachers and flexible scheduling for school librarians. Hurley (2004) concludes her article with a call for more research (current findings are inconclusive) and a call for school librarians to remain open to to the idea that the real solution might be more related to library practices rather than scheduling type.  This approach seems like a good idea to me, given the changing face of school libraries today.