Why not instead of giving money to another agency, give money to libraries to address the concerns of the underserved?

I’m all for working with other agencies. Libraries do that all the time. But we aren’t talking about refugees from Thailand this is very different issue.

“AmeriCorps is a great program that could use more funding, along with a more specific goals regarding literacy, including digital and health information literacy.”

Libraries have great programs regarding literacy, including digital and health information literacy as well. The libraries would love to have enough money to hire and train people in their own communities.

“We could not have accomplished as much as we have without AmeriCorps volunteers, who are paid much less than other personnel.”

That is the real point, spread literacy using library spaces if need be, just don’t more library staff?

“These volunteers can be seen as potential recruits for our profession, especially when they see librarians leading these effort.”

We aren’t short of recruits, we are short of jobs.

“ For a better future for librarians, we need to break down walls between the organizations so that all types of librarians can work together at all levels.”

Without walls we’d have a blob. And I’d like to stress that libraries already work with lots of organizations.

I’m not conceptually against the ideals of what a digital corps could achieve and help with, I just don’t see why we can’t work through libraries to address the concerns in question instead of creating another agency. I think I’d be on board if that could clearly be explained.

I hope I didn’t sound too grumpy.

You state – “The six points you quoted asserted by ALA do not mention librarians, nor is there any mention of school libraries or school librarians. ”

Those six points are part of a larger document which does in fact mention school libraries. Unfortunately I have to point out that that document was sent to Task Force members via email for comment before it was submitted. I hate to do this but did you comment? Did you stress the importance of school libraries when you had the opportunity? If so and you were ignored I apologize right now, publicly. But if not, as I’ve pointed out, ALA is made up of US.

You state : ” As far as the FCC issue goes, it would have been helpful for ALA (all divisions to whom this issue mattered–not just ALA Washington/OITP) to have included language that specifically challenged the FCC’s plan for the digital literacy corps and to have asserted that librarians would have been a better target for that funding the FCC was willing to invest in the effort.”

Where exactly should that language have been? In what document?

I’m frustrated by vague “should”s being thrown about (not just by you) which indicate the people do not understand the procedures and processes. It is not as if ALA can simply walk into the FCC Chairman’s office and demand his attention and time and FORCE him to recognize the importance of libraries.

I understand that school librarians are afraid for their future, and I know that fear causes strong emotions. One article in the Times doesn’t make something true or finished.

As a current member of the Task Force (I’m assuming you haven’t stepped down) you have the opportunity to ensure that the Task Force and OITP hear you and through that make a difference with the FCC’s decision, please take that opportunity and use it. I encourage you to focus your energy on the opportunities open to you right now for making a difference.

If you have specific questions about my involvement and dialogue on the task force, I’m more than happy to discuss it with you directly. I have voiced my concerns in meetings I was able to attend; I would have attended more of the virtual meetings had they not been at a time outside of the school day when I am working with students since I rarely can afford the luxury of an hour long conference call because of limited staffing.

Regarding the assignment of blame/failure–we can agree to disagree. I’m not inclined to continue the same circular arguments on that front. As far as the FCC issue goes, it would have been helpful for ALA (all divisions to whom this issue mattered–not just ALA Washington/OITP) to have included language that specifically challenged the FCC’s plan for the digital literacy corps and to have asserted that librarians would have been a better target for that funding the FCC was willing to invest in the effort.
I may be wrong, but my guess is that others upset about this issue would like a more specific explanation as to why “librarians” are largely absent from the language of the documentation that has been provided by ALA.

As far as membership goes, that is a very personal decision, especially as economic hardships force many people to think more critically about where they want to invest their time and money. I can’t speak for other areas of librarianship, but it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see how horribly eroded school librarianship has become; while the advocacy efforts of ALA may have been noble and well-intended, it’s obvious they have not been effective in mitigating this intense deterioration. It may be we are now in a time in which we should no longer look to ALA but instead, approach advocacy more strategically through local efforts and coalitions formed with other agencies that may prove to be more effective in this new economy.