According to the ALA's Library Bill of Rights, "Books and other library resources should be provided for the interest, information, and enlightenment of all people of the community the library serves. Materials should not be excluded because of the origin, background, or views of those contributing to their creation." Furthermore, according to the ALA's Freedom to Read Statement, "It is in the public interest for publishers and librarians to make available the widest diversity of views and expressions, including those that are unorthodox, unpopular, or considered dangerous by the majority."

Reducing the number of physical books in the collection would seriously infringe on the community's right to read by limiting their access to a "wide variety of views and expressions" Despite Google's Book Project promising to create a digital database of all published works, the fact remains that limiting a library's holdings to mostly digital resources will remove a vast array of titles and information from the hands of the community.

Additionally such an action would inevitably bring up a vexing ethical question: Which books to keep and which books would go? What criteria would be be used? How transparent would the process be? And where would all the "removed books" go? Would they still be accessible to the public in some way? If so, who would manage that?

One effective argument against this plan could be: This is a big service model change that is future facing. To do it effectively, efficiently and ethically, the board would be better served by first commissioning a panel of experts (including librarians) to study the issue of how best to implement its goals of increasing digital learning opportunities for the community, while not compromising the library's current services. Current circulation data of the collection's physical books and materials don't lie - the community loves their books!"

Questions for a group of stakeholders making the decisions:

1. Which books will be removed?

2. Who will decide on the titles and what is the criteria around those chosen for removal?

3. Are these titles easily available on digital?

4. What research has been done on other library-to-lab conversions and what was the outcome?

5. Could students use iPads and personal devices for check out around the room and take less space away from the library setting?

6. What are the next step and five/ten year plan after this change is implemented?

7. Have the stakeholders considered the other uses of the library that will also be affected with this change?

8. Is the lab cost effective? What is the life span of the equipment that is planned for purchase?

Jeremy's points are also all necessary. Without seeing the data for this site and without knowing how transparent they were, I would suspect that important consideration have been forgotten.

When attempting to convince a decision making body, it's helpful to understand their values and make your pitch in alignment with those. Without knowing the specifics, what do you think might be preciptating this recommendation and how could you use that rationale to help make a case for keeping the collection?

In response to Rinio, Deborah prompt: It seems to me that this school district may also be collapsing classroom learning into digital learning. This makes me wonder if the district is facing major budget constraints and needs to layoff classroom teachers. However, if this IS the case, the argument that JENNIFER ALEXANDER makes regarding cost effectiveness is key.

I would push back that this endeavor would end up costing the district far more when it considers buying apps, software, hardware, training the remaining staff, staffing the learning lab, as well as paying to move and house a very useable collection of books. Not to mention, how this might seriously change the district's assessment and reporting regime. This too will be costly.

Oh, and time and money will also need to be spent to bring parents onboard with all of these big changes.

While it’s exciting that the district wants to invest in digital learning, the plan to downsize the library and shift funding away from librarian-led programs raises some serious concerns. Research consistently shows that strong school libraries—with certified librarians and diverse collections—have a positive impact on student achievement, especially for students who may already face barriers like limited internet access or fewer resources at home.

If we eliminate or reduce librarian-led programs, we risk widening these gaps. For many students—especially those who may not have internet at home—the school library is their main access point to both print and digital learning tools. The shift shouldn’t be about either/or; it should be about both/and. How can we move toward digital innovation without losing the essential supports that libraries provide? Students need access to both digital and physical resources, and they need the guidance of trained librarians to make the most of them.

I’d ask the board to reimagine the stereotypical role of the library. Keep the certified librarian in place, maintain a strong collection of print books, and add in digital tools and collaborative spaces to blend the best of both worlds—future-forward technology and proven educational support.

To get more people involved, I’d encourage sharing this message with families, teachers, and students through community meetings, short videos or testimonials, and even simple flyers or social media posts. When stakeholders hear how the library helps real kids every day, they’re more likely to speak up and support a more balanced plan.

Some questions I have for this group of stakeholders:

1. Why does the library have to be the "room" that is repurposed? What about some of our other "classroom areas" (our previously used intervention rooms), or part of our newly built academy building?

2. Our school district, in order to eliminate space as well as positions, has previously repurposed the "computer labs" into additional classrooms. The desktop computers have all been disposed of. ALL students are issued a chromebook to use for digital learning. So, if we're repurposing a space for digital learning, are we doing away with the individual chromebooks?

3. Our building once had a "computer lab" before we were able to purchase the chromebooks. That "lab" was transformed into a larger and accessible Special Ed. room. Are we moving backwards?

4. Will these chromebooks be a part of the repurposed room, or will they be replaced with desktop computers? Where is the funding coming from?

5. In the event that this proposal is approved, who decides which of our library books will remain and which will be discarded?

6. Has this proposal been well planned out? What is the long range goal?

7. If implemented, will this be a one to two year change, or are we looking into a five or even a ten year plan?

8. What about the Library Bill of Rights? Aren't we supposed to provide books as well as other resources for information as well as for the interest of our students?

9. In addition to reducing the amount of books, have "you" considered what else the library is used for? Students are learning and implementing research and inquiry skills.

One argument I’ve seen repeated over the years is that everything people need now is online. We don’t need libraries of physical materials because it’s all available digitally.

What would you say in response to that?

The argument that “we don’t need physical materials anymore because everything’s online” is a bit misleading. There is a lot of great digital content out there, and it’s an important part of modern learning. But not all students have equal access to it. Some kids don’t have reliable internet at home, or they’re sharing devices with siblings. Just because something exists online doesn’t mean every student can use it. That’s why the AASL standards stress the importance of equitable access—libraries are often the one place where all students can count on finding what they need, no matter their situation.

Also, research shows that many students understand and remember more when they read print, especially younger kids and those with learning differences. Printed books help with focus and comprehension in ways digital text often doesn’t. That ties directly into what the ISTE and AASL standards say about building strong, thoughtful readers who can really engage with what they’re learning. There’s also something special about browsing a shelf and discovering a book you weren’t even looking for. It builds curiosity and a love for reading that algorithms and search bars just can’t replicate (AASL “Explore” standard—helping students develop interests, empathy, and a wider worldview).

Going all-digital assumes someone is carefully selecting that content, but not all online stuff is high-quality, age-appropriate, or even safe. That’s where librarians come in—they help students learn to spot misinformation and use online tools responsibly. Without them, kids are on their own in an overwhelming digital world. We do need to embrace digital learning, but a well-rounded library should include both the physical and the digital.

All learners benefit from the exploration process, or browsing the shelves to find something of interest. Although we can certainly locate new items online, it's a very different process from physically browsing the shelves of a library or bookstore.

Also, all learners have their preferences and needs when it comes to format, whether it's print, digital, or audio. Librarians can help learners access resources in the format that best meets their needs.

I would recommend this book, or at least the talking points within it, to any focus group that is advocating for more technology time for children. I cannot imagine an elementary school without hundreds of actual books for students to sit and turn pages, while they read and analyze and predict what will happen next.

If you are still raising young children, I would say it is a must read. If you are already finish raising your children, share it with your adult children. Some of the chapters are actually a little unsettling on both levels. If nothing else, it is very thought provoking.

How are we supposed to encourage the love of reading when children can't identify that we are reading when we are on an electronic device?

What about the board book section in a library? Is holding an iPad and scrolling the pages of a color or letter book the same as having an actual book and feeling the thickness of the pages?

What about books that allow for manipulation or sensory experiences? Will the next generation lose a necessary tactile learning experience?

How would this affect their language development?

Regarding unequal access to technology, would this be a concern for discrimination? Even students who have access to the appropriate technology may still lack the digital literacy skills necessary for success. How could we make it more equitable?

Another essential consideration is teacher training and support. How will districts ensure that their teachers and staff are adequately trained to make the switch? Reflecting on COVID, will teachers be expected to figure it out on their own?

jeremy neldon and Amanda Granger bring up great concerns about the downsides to reducing library spaces and replacing physical books with digital resources. Unequal access to internet is a big reason why libraries are still utilized today. Community's right to read is entrenched in physical books.

JENNIFER ALEXANDER is also correct in taking a cautious approach. Sometimes shifting digital looks more affordable on paper, but ends up being far more expensive once all the necessary tech purchases, fees, and annual subscriptions are factored in.

In response to Rinio, Deborah, when I hear people say we don't need libraries anymore because everything is online, I like to remind them that we still don't know what the effects of tech use in young students is long term. The research is still inconclusive as to whether digital reading is even as effective as physical books. I am glad JENNIFER ALEXANDER shared "The Anxious Generation," it is such a good read. The

"Oklahoma Education Journal" did a piece in 2024 about reading comprehension in students who read physical books versus those who read digitally.

It is important to remember that as a librarian you must advocate for your library and your students. You need to make sure you reach out to potential stakeholders to help you advocate. You cannot do this in isolation. As Levitov said in Activism and the School Librarian: Tools for Advocacy and Survival, you must share your lessons, reading and literacy activities, events, famous visitors, and data on how your role is making a positive impact on students' literacy skills. The community will not know of all the wonderful things you do if you do not speak up!

I might ask for guidance in how the school board proposes to move forward. Stakeholders such as teachers, parents, and even students might want to know the big changes proposed, then I would ask the school board to hold an open session where all stakeholders are invited to have input and their opinions shared. Sometimes, it takes community support to impact the changes necessary in education, in a positive way.

-To address Dr. Rinio's question that everything is available online, so we do not need physical books.

We must remember that not all books are offered in a digital format. If an author does not agree to a digital format or allow it to be freely distributed it would violate copyright laws. Libraries must ensure it has express permission to be able to do so or it would violate the author's copyright.

To sum up:

Asking critical questions can help the school board to see that they haven't thought everything through?

Decision makers need to see research and hear anecdotes on the importance of access to physical media.

Stakeholders need an opportunity to provide input.

As librarians, if something like this occurs in your community, it's your responsibility to inform your school community and encourage folks to share their opinions with the school board. Remember that you can't tell people what to say, but you can certainly let them know that a crucial decision is being made and they should have an opportunity to have their voice heard.