BFTP: 10 time savers for library and tech professionals

I had the undeserved reputation of being a hard worker. My schools' technology departments ran as smoothly as one can expect these things to run. I managed to get a few things written and published each year and to take an active part in several professional and community organizations. I took all my vacation time, watched too many movies, socialized, and got in a bit of exercise. But I was (and still am) at heart, a very lazy individual.

As media and technology professionals we are asked to do an increasing number of tasks that are often increasingly complex. As schools reduce “support” personnel, those remaining  pick up the slack. It behooves us all to think about our time management skills and strategies. May I share a few of mine?

1. Never do something you can foist on to someone else. (Oops, I mean delegate.) If you have support staff, use them to the maximum. It’s surprising how talented and creative people can be when you ask it of them. On the flip side, insist that anyone you supervise does not put in unpaid overtime. Period.

2. Examine whether work that takes up your time is worthwhile. Some tasks are simply not worth doing or not worth doing very well. For many reports and inventories, if you can be 90% accurate that’s good enough. A job not worth doing is not worth doing well.

3. Examine whether the work is really yours. I have never liked the whine “It’s not my job.” but sometimes we really aren’t the right person for some jobs we are asked to do. I never reviewed and recommended curricular software. That was no more my job than reviewing textbooks – it should be done by content area curriculum writers. Be careful about this one through. If a job is mission critical, it can add to your job security.

4. Some projects just need to be dumped, losses cut. I don't to do this often, but every once in a while it's about all you can do.

5. Never save anything that you know somebody else keeps. You can always get it from the other person. I only had one small file drawer and I probably only looked at half a dozen folders in it. A good filing system for saved files on your computer is a real time saver. Get a scanner for your desk.

6. Toss ALL junk mail and just skim journals and magazines. I read one article out of fifty, but still felt fairly in the know.

7. Use the e-mail delete key early and often. Set your e-mail filter to eliminate as much spam as possible and to direct messages from listservs into their own folders. Read listserv subject headings and mass delete those of little relevance. Only check your e-mail a couple times a day.

8. Spend the last hour of each week just getting the top of your desk cleared off. The illusion of control is important and a neat desk is a good way to start any week. Spend a morning twice a year to clean and organize your office. A few minutes organizing saves lots of time in the long run. (Great task when the network is down.)

9. Learn to take breaks when needed. Nothing slows me down like a brain-clog – a task that is seemingly impossible to complete. Get away from it, take a walk, get a fresh cup of coffee, and then come back to it.

10. Like what you do. If you are miserable in your job, find a different line of work. If you have a passion for your work, it’s not really work at all.

All these suggestions are easy to make, but difficult to practice. But it is important to our patrons, our organizations, and to ourselves that on a daily basis we consciously evaluate how we direct our energies. As Annie Dillard reminds us, "How we spend our days is, of course, how we spend our lives."

Original post 10/24/18

There's a fine line between advocate and nut job

On a Facebook post, Mike, member of the hiking group, wrote in response to "Don't Toss Apple Cores and Banana Peels on the Ground":

I think there is a point of ridiculousness and I think this article about discarded fruit in the forest has breached that point. What fruit takes two years to decompose? Seriously. Certainly not an apple core or a banana peel. What is the difference between an apple core and all the other trillions of tons of organic matter that the forest produces? I would argue that placing organic waste in the forest is BENEFICIAL to the forest, adding humus composition and ground cover to prevent erosion. Let's keep it real. This article about the evils of apple cores brought to you by people who drive fossil fuel burning automobiles to get to the forest for which they are pontificating. Once you embark on silly talk, people stop listening to the important stuff.

I remember being chastised by a guide in the Grand Canyon for peeing too close to a stream. (I think he thought people should be at least 20 feet away and I was probably only five or six feet distant.) I asked him how they train deer and other animals to observe the 20 foot rule of urination, to which he simply gave me a look like I was being a smart-ass. Without adequate explanation of how human urine differs from that of other mammalian urine, he lost credibility with me. 

I often wonder how much more progress we would make in our advocacy efforts if we took a more modest approach. When we become so extreme in our views that what we say is perceived as "silly talk." For example:

• I can get behind removing statues of Confederate generals,  but removing George Washington and Abraham Lincoln?
• I support selecting new library materials that reflect a more racially and culturally sensitive POV, but tossing out To Kill a Mockingbird, Little House on the Prairie, and Dr. Seuss?
• I believe in background checks and buyers permits for gun ownership, but I can not support allowing assault rifles to be sold OR not allowing people to own guns at all.
• I want people to have the right to free speech in all media, but I have real problems with spreading unfounded conspiracy theories that may lead to violence. 

For nearly every controversial issue, there is a middle ground which those on both extremes would oppose, but with which most thinking people would agree. Of course, this approach isn't as satisfying as being sanctimonious or as engaging as Twitter battles. 

But it might actually lead to permanent change. Studies show that dieters who lose weight slowly over time tend to keep the weight off, but those who crash diet put the pounds back on just as fast.

How do you sound when you want change - as an advocate or a nut job?

Libraries and PC balance

The February 27, 2021 Minneapolis Star Tribune news[paper included the opinion piece "Woke revolution looms for schools" by conservative columnist Katherine Kersten. In her usual hysterical style, she "reports" on the new social studies standards under development by the department of education. She warns:

The new standards focus primarily on cultivating politically correct attitudes and commitments, rather than preparing students to take on the duties of citizenship by ensuring they understand the chronological story of the key events, actors and ideas that shaped American democracy and the larger world.

George Washington and D-Day rate no mention, though they were highlighted in earlier versions of the standards. Abraham Lincoln and the Battle of Gettysburg are omitted, but students study partus sequitur ventrem — the legal principle adopted in Virginia in 1662 that a child followed the slave or free status of its mother.

World history from classical Greece and Rome to World Wars I and II — a major focus of the current and original 2004 standards — has been virtually eliminated. In its place, for example, as young people study “where buildings can and cannot be built” in the U.S., they will learn about “feng shui” — a pseudoscientific Chinese practice that Merriam-Webster defines as configuring a site or structure to “harmonize with the spiritual forces that inhabit it.”

My immediate reaction to Kersten's concerns was to remind the newspaper readers that school curricula and history itself have always contained bias, which is why school libraries are so critical to a balanced education. Librarians have, as a part of their professional ethical practice, the obligation to provide voices from across the political and cultural spectrum, selected for age-appropriateness, curricular relevance, and responsible editing oversight. We should, I always felt, be carrying both the left-leaning New York Times as well as right-learning Wall Street Journal. That even students in conservative states could find Howard Zin's The Peoples' History of the United States and students in the most liberal states could still find Huck Finn in their school libraries. I would argue that the best defense against conspiracy theories like those perpetrated by QAnon are materials that support a responsible conservative point of view, rather than a heads-on rebuttal.

But then I read in the next day's issue of the Strib "Woke left wants to erase classic literature for kids," in which John Kass' warns:

But the purging of great literature often takes place quietly, among woke teachers and librarians. If the classics aren’t exactly banned outright or burned, they have another way:

To place offending literature on the back shelf, out of the reach of the young, where they’re lost to gather dust in the shadows.

Author Padma Venkatraman wrote an essay titled “Weeding Out Racism’s Invisible Roots: Rethinking Children’s Classics” in the School Library Journal. She supports this purge.

“Challenging old classics is the literary equivalent of replacing statues of racist figures,” she writes. “… Exposing young people to stories in which racism, sexism, ableism, anti-Semitism, and other forms of hate are the norm may sow seeds of bias that can grow into indifference or prejudice.”

And so, the astounding complexity of great literature and great writers is now reduced, as are so many things these days, to angry zealotry and political correctness.

I then found and read Venkatraman piece and it made me ask some very hard questions about the role of school libraries and the selection/weeding practices of school librarians.

The Code of Ethics of the American Library Association says:

VII.    We distinguish between our personal convictions and professional duties and do not allow our personal beliefs to interfere with fair representation of the aims of our institutions or the provision of access to their information resources. 

ALA's  “Library Bill of Rights” clearly states:

II. Libraries should provide materials and information presenting all points of view on current and historical issues. Materials should not be proscribed or removed because of partisan or doctrinal disapproval.

And ALA's own “Freedom to Read's”  first statements exhorts:

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.

As expressed in “Access to Resources and Services in the School Library Media Program: An Interpretation of the Library Bill of Rights” 

Although the educational level and program of the school necessarily shapes the resources and services of a school library media program, the principles of the Library Bill of Rights apply equally to all libraries, including school library media programs.

Personally, I very much support Venkatraman's suggestion to "actively add to shelves and reading lists, books that win awards celebrating excellence and honoring diversity ...curate books that can become future classics." in order to help created a more culturally empathic society. However, what I believe runs counter to ALA's principles and the good professional practices that they guide is her admonition to keep "racist books out of young readers' hands." 

I have always been a proponent of a well-weeded school library collection. My very first professional article was "Weeding the Neglected Collection" in the November 1990 issue of School Library Journal in which I shared how I tossed old nonfiction  books that reflected gender bias.ie:The Boys' Book of...

Weeding non-fiction based on age, accuracy, lack of use and irrelevance to the curriculum, I can certainly get behind. But waters get murky when we start tossing (or hiding) materials that may be personally offensive or contain philosophies or beliefs contrary to our own. When a practicing librarian, despite having my own political views, I always felt comfortable explaining to my school board and administration that I maintained a thoughtfully chosen, carefully weeded, balanced collection. 

If school libraries are to survive in this politically divided climate,  this balance is more important than ever. Do our hard line community members really need another reason not to fund good library programs - maintaining they support radical social views rather than provide student the resources they need to make informed judgements?