Computerized Reading Programs: Intellectual Freedom

Some school librarians are concerned about the possible consequences that computerized reading programs, such as Accelerated Reader (AR), may have on students’ selection of reading materials and their privacy. Although depending on how a program is implemented, here’s a disquieting story from an elementary librarian:

As the 5th graders enter the library, the teacher announces, “Find an AR book that is on your reading level.” While the class browses, one student, whispers to me, “Can you help me find a book?” Jim is required to read AR books near his AR-tested 3rd grade reading level. Because the spines of the books are labeled with reading levels, Jim is embarrassed and avoids browsing with his peers, most of whom are reading titles many grade levels above his. Jim comes to me each week, and I know what he might want—a short chapter book that would be of interest to a middle grade boy reading “below” his AR tested reading level, one that doesn’t scream “picture book.” I discreetly lead him to a book suitable for his reading assignment (Margaret, email message to author, June 9, 2011).

CHOICE VERSUS READING LEVELS AND POINTS

Even though there are thousands of books in the collection, Jim’s choice is limited. For his class assignment, he may select only a title within his reading level range and for which an AR test is available. After Jim completes the book, he will take a test to earn “points.” The “points” translate into classroom rewards such as a pizza party and also affect individual student grades. Jim doesn’t want to be excluded from a class treat, nor does he want a poor grade.

The restriction of choosing a book within his reading level combined with the lure of earning “points” changes Jim’s search from finding an appealing read to a hunt for a book with the greatest number of points, even if the book does not engage his interest. Although the library’s collection supports classroom instruction, teachers should ensure that program assignment guidelines allow students to seek books that pique their intellectual curiosity and correlate with their social and emotional levels. From Margaret’s perspective, “AR advocates say that labels on library books will offer students reading success. But I see some kids feeling singled out and cautious about browsing with much of the fun gone” (Margaret, email message to author, June 9, 2011). Additionally, reading levels do not always correlate to a student’s emotional or social levels.

HOW LABELING AFFECTS STUDENT PRIVACY

Traditionally library books are labeled on the spine for subject organization and easier location. Adding the reading level of the book on its spine allows others to view the numbers and, thus, threatens student privacy. Only the student, the child’s parents, the teacher, and the librarian should know the student’s reading capabilities. Jim’s reluctance to have his peers know his reading level is understandable. Knowledge of a child’s reading level can cause classmates to tease or ridicule a child who reads less skillfully. School librarians, therefore, have ethical and legal responsibilities to protect a student’s privacy related to library materials.

UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES

In addition to restricting choice and privacy issues, some librarians are being urged to arrange library collections according to reading levels. This non-standard shelving practice makes it difficult for library staff and students to find individual titles. Additionally, students using a public library may be confused about how to find a book, since those collections are not “leveled.” Maintaining the confidentiality of a child’s reading level is even more difficult in a leveled collection.

SEEKING A SOLUTION

Is there an answer for school librarians? They can consider these steps:

• Resist placing reading level labels on book spines and “leveling” the library,
• Advocate for district policies that take into account privacy concerns, and
• Educate the principal and teachers about students’ First Amendment right to freely choose library materials.

Whatever the individual school librarian’s stand may be on this issue, there should still be reflection on how implementation of a computerized reading program impacts students’ intellectual freedom.

ADDITIONAL RESOURCES:

American Association of School Librarians. “AASL Position Statement on Labeling Books by Reading Levels.” http://www.ala.org/ala/mgrps/divs/aasl/aaslissues/positionstatements/positionstatements.cfm. (accessed August 12, 2011).

American Library Association. “Restricted Access to Library Materials: An Interpretation of the Library Bill of Rights.” http://www.ifmanual.org/restrictedaccess (accessed July 14, 2011).

American Library Association. “Questions and Answers on Labeling and Ratings Systems.” http://www.ifmanual.org/labelingratingqa (accessed July 14, 2011).