I recently attended the Booktrust “Reading Changes
Lives” conference in London. Two pieces of research were presented, by DJS
Research and the University of Sheffield, which showed that there were significant
minorities of adults with negative attitudes towards reading, those who did not
read had lower literacy levels, and were more likely to be from disadvantaged
backgrounds and lower socio-economic groups. The research also highlighted that
a person’s reading history impacted on their habits and attitudes. The reports
can be found here: http://www.booktrust.org.uk/news-and-blogs/news/270/
This research hasn’t really told us anything new; studies
by the National Literacy Trust have said much the same thing as have enquiries
from the US, Canada and Australia, although I guess it’s good to have UK-based
results that are up-to-date and that have been established using a higher
sample of the population than previously.
But I have to admit that my immediate response was “what
next?” Because it seems to me that it’s a bit pointless and a waste of both
time and money if nothing is done, if no-one utilises the results to inform
policy regarding libraries and if all they lead to is lots of well-meaning
conversations.
The presentations were followed by a panel discussion
with Children’s Laureate, Malorie Blackman; the Commissioner of Social Mobility
and Child Poverty Commission, Anne Marie Carrie; former Education Secretary,
Alan Johnson MP; NIACE Director of Research and Development, Carol Taylor; and
Liam Fox MP. This started off well with all of the panellists singing the
praises of libraries and telling us how they used them when younger and what
differences they’d made to their lives. But as the conversation progressed, I
found myself having to bite my tongue at some of the comments made – I didn’t
dare put my hand up to respond for fear of not being about to stop the tirade!
For example, the suggestion made by Liam Fox that perhaps
it would be cheaper to order everyone books from Amazon rather than have a
public library system. Putting aside the fact that a library is NOT just about
books, what would people do when they’ve finished with them? They could hardly
just pile them up on the coffee table as they’d soon run out of room (and yes, I
know my coffee table not to mention three bookcases and several random places
around the house have huge piles of books filling them but I think librarians
are an exception) so I guess we’d have to organise some sort of swapping
arrangement, whereby they could bring their books and exchange them for
something else. Oh … hang on … isn’t that what people do in a library?
Liam then suggested that we could give every child an
e-reader instead of access to a range of books! Despite the fact that not every
book is available as an e-book, that a physical library gives children contact with
a much larger number of books than can be stored on an e-reader, that you would
lose the wonderful art of browsing and self-discovery, and that somebody would
have to select the books (and I dread to think what would be chosen if the
Government were involved … Mr Gove’s 50 books comes to mind … shudder!). This
comment from a man who only minutes before had told us how he’d benefited
personally from libraries. Malorie Blackman was her usual magnificent self, the
voice of reason amongst this lunacy, supporting books and libraries, both
school and public.
Research shows that people with low literacy levels are
at a disadvantage both socially and economically; research shows that reading
increases literacy levels; research shows that access to libraries increases reading.
If the decision-makers are really concerned about literacy, then they would invest
in public libraries and not close them, and they would ensure that every child
has access to a school library managed by a professional librarian. When is
someone going to join the dots?
