Is librarianship a reactionary profession?

This tweet appeared in my feed a day or so ago:

 

Link in post: http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-42587007

As anyone knows who reads this blog, I am a believer in libraries and the good they do for kids, communities, and society. But I worry that we dismiss educational innovations out-of-hand when funds are spent that "could have gone to libraries."

While the objection to the UK's "English hubs" came from a political party, it was re-tweeted by an eminent library leader, I suspect in agreement. To me the post sends a message that a new effort to help disadvantaged students means less money for libraries. I find it hard to believe there is a direct cause-effect relationship.

While libraries have been empirically proven to improve literacy for many people, there are obviously many people libraries fail to reach - and for probably many reasons.

I worry that we as librarians do ourselves a disservice when we reject out-of-hand innovative practices when they seem to threaten our established practices and norms.

As I have often stated, creativity is needed when the accepted best practice in education does not work. I don't know of any educational resource, practice, or theory that meets the needs of 100% of our kids. My analogy has been that I want my dentist to use best practice when working on my teeth - unless that practice is not effective. Then I want him to be creative. 

What might be some new programs in your school that are getting funds "that might be instead spent on the library?" Digital resources? A new reading curriculum? 1:1 initiatives? Do we as librarians simply resist, protecting our own programs?

Or do we critically examine these innovations to see if we have a role in making them as effective as possible, especially for those not now well-served by our traditional programs?

Do we as a profession want to be known as reactionaries or innovators? I hope it is the latter, especially as long as some kids are not doing as well as they might.