Sticks and Stones May Break My Bones, But Stigmas Might Actually Hurt Me

I have the pleasure and privilege of working with the librarian who got me hooked on libraries as a child. Earlier last week I was chatting with her about youth services and she mentioned that she had recently read an article about how many libraries (public and school) are putting non-librarians in charge of the children's department in order to save on costs. This conversation got me thinking about a couple of things:

1). Why is there a pervasive assumption that "anyone" can run a children's department?

I think that a large part of this has to do with the fact that part of being an effective children's librarian is making the job look easy. Toddlers do not enjoy storytime because they know it enhances their early literacy skills; they enjoy storytime because the person leading it is fun and engaging. The librarian leading storytime has a dual responsibility of being fun and engaging while also thinking about those deeper issues, like early literacy skills and programming. This dual role requires a great amount of creativity, professionalism, and critical thought on the part of the librarian. So why is it not immediately recognized for what it is? I think part of it has to do with the fact that the more professional role is not always immediately visible to the average observer--by and large, a patron will only see the end result of a storytime program and not any of the preparation that went into the creation of the program. Same applies to selection and deselection, and even in-person services like reader's advisory and reference.

2). How can we truthfully say that children are a priority if we find it too inconvenient to employ professional children's librarians?

There is an inherent hypocrisy here: children are so important, but not important enough to justify the expense of employing a professional children's librarian. I'm not disputing the fact that sometimes budget constraints mean difficult choices; rather, I am taking issue with the idea of justifying eliminating or reducing children's services based on this misguided perception of professional worth and ability. There are also implications and judgments about the value of children as people--namely, that they are less needful of professionals because their needs and existence are so simple. The chapter from the Warner book touches on this concept in its discussion of being "for the children"--it's an admirable ideal that is rarely put into useful practice.