libraries and schools by boards of education, are not in favour of
vesting the control of libraries in the education authorities. “Too
close an administrative connection ... has not been beneficial to
the library ... it has generally been found that when the control of
a public library is vested in a body created originally for another
purpose it is regarded as of secondary importance and its development
is retarded. It is better that the library should have its own board of
trustees, and that the two institutions should co-operate in the freest
manner. Such mutual aid is, of course, founded on the fact that the
educational work of both school and library is carried on largely by
means of books. That of the school is formal, compulsory, and limited
in time; that of the library is informal, voluntary, and practically
unlimited. It is greatly to the advantage of the scholar, and of those
informal processes of training that are going on constantly during life
whether he wills it or not, that he should form the habit of consulting
and using books outside of the school. When books are thought of merely
as school implements their use is naturally abandoned when school days
are over.”[44]
Similar views were submitted by the Library Association to the Adult
Education Committee. Part of their resolution ran as follows:--
“The aim of the library as an education institution is best expressed
in the formula ‘self-development in an atmosphere of freedom,’ as
contrasted with the aim of the school, which is ‘training in an
atmosphere of restraint or discipline’; in the school the teacher
is dominant, but the pupil strikes out his own line in the library,
which supplies the written material upon which the powers awakened
and trained in the school can be exercised; furthermore, the contacts
of the library with organized education cease where the educational
machinery terminates; but the library continues as an educational
force of national importance in its contacts with the whole social,
political, and intellectual life of the community....”
“In speaking to the resolution, Mr. L. Stanley Jast, formerly Secretary
of the Library Association, developed the argument--“The work of the
librarian is sharply contrasted with that of the teacher. The teacher
deals with human material, the librarian with the written record, and
only incidentally with the people who come to consult and use it. But
not only is there this wide difference in the nature of the material
upon which the teacher and the librarian respectively work; there is
a difference of immediate aim of so basic a character that one is
almost the negative of the other, and therefore are they perfectly
complementary to one another.... The library and the school supplement
and complement each other. And the virtue of each is that it is not the
other.... The material of each is different, the aims are different,
and the administrative machinery of the one has no real relation to
that of the other.... The resolution has a second thesis, which is
that it is after all only a portion of the library field which touches
education.... We outgrow the school; we cannot outgrow the library.”[45]
“We have examined these arguments with the care to which the policy
of the Library Association is entitled. The first argument, however,
rests upon a sharp distinction between the library and the school which
should not, in our opinion, exist. A school is a more complex and
many sided institution than the argument would appear to assume, and
its functions are too narrowly confined by the phrase ‘training in an
atmosphere of restraint or discipline.’ The class-room is but part of
a school. Other institutions--the workshop, the gymnasium, the playing
field, and the library--are essential features, each of them making its
peculiar contribution to that self-development which is claimed to be
an end of the library. The school in fact, is a community which fulfils
its end through a variety of agencies of which the class-room is one
and the library another. The ideal school is one which seeks to aid
self-development through the medium of ‘discipline’ on the one hand,
and by providing opportunities for the pupil ‘to strike out on his own
line’ on the other.
“The antithesis between the teacher and the librarian is also, in our
judgment, too sharply defined. Powers are trained by their exercise,
and the printed book is an integral part of the equipment of the
school. If the librarian deals with the written record, it is but as a
means to self-development in the scholar. In other words, the library
is part of the educational fabric, just as much as the art room or
the school clinic. The school and the teacher will perform their true
function only in so far as they enter into the closest co-operation
with the library and the librarian. The latter will fill their real
place only through co-operation with the former. Both school and
library will be immeasurably strengthened when the artificial line of
demarcation is obliterated.
“It is sometimes argued that the libraries would lose by the process
and become subject to an over-rigid systematization, to which
librarians are rightly opposed. This attitude of mind appears to us to
be based on a want of knowledge of the strong trend towards greater
freedom and initiative within the publicly provided schools of the
country. This movement, we believe, would receive a valuable stimulus
from closer association with the libraries, without necessarily
imposing a mechanical organization upon the libraries.
“The provision of children’s rooms in libraries, the assembling of
books bearing upon the work and interests of students, library lessons
and other developments and proposals will forge strong and necessary
links between the school and the library; but it is difficult to see
how this intimate relationship can be generally established unless
there is an organic connection arising from a single policy based
upon the complex needs of the pupil. Under certain circumstances the
frank interchange of experience and inter-relation of interests may be
possible with dual control. But it is at least open to doubt whether
they will be generally and permanently attained without a common
administration.
“The second argument in support of independent administration for
libraries is, in the words of the resolution referred to above, that
‘the contacts of the library with organised education cease where
the educational machinery terminates.’ The Education Act, 1918,
provides for compulsory continuation education up to the age of 16,
and ultimately 18. Further education of this character must lead to a
growth of both technical and general education beyond these ages. There
is certain to be an extension of technical education after the war, and
there will be a growing demand for non-vocational education to be met.
With the latter question we shall deal at greater length in our Final
Report. A greater call than in the past will undoubtedly be made upon
our educational resources, and the necessity will arise for that close
co-operation between educational institutions and libraries which is
admittedly desirable in the case of school pupils if the school and the
library are to fulfil their functions.
“It is true that we cannot outgrow the library: but it is equally true
that we cannot outgrow the school, in other words, that we cannot
outgrow the need for systematic education. The whole purpose of our
inquiries into adult education has been directed towards formulating
recommendations based upon this truth. Our inquiries, further, justify
the view that there is a growing recognition of the need for education
and an increasing desire for it on the part of men and women.
“But though the public library has an important function to perform
in relation to educational institutions, its activities travel beyond
assistance to formal education. It exists to serve the needs of a
public with varied interests. It must satisfy the requirements of the
serious student; but it must also cater for that large class of people
who are ‘general readers,’ and those who go to books for recreation.
The unsystematic and recreative reading which the libraries have
stimulated do not, however, it seems to us, provide any argument
for maintaining the public libraries as an independent municipal
service.”[46]
In the present writer’s opinion, the distinction drawn by Mr. Jast
is a sound one, and is corroborated by the reluctance of American
librarians to placing libraries under an authority primarily appointed
to administer schools. But, since there remains so much in common in
the aims of the two sets of institutions, if the supreme authority
were entrusted with a scheme of education in the larger sense--call it
culture, humanism, or personal development, since the term education
smacks too much of the school and college--then it would be logical
and salutary to put our public libraries under a department of that
authority, making this responsible, side by side with the education
department in the narrower sense, to the supreme Board--which may
or may not continue to be called the Board of Education. Dread of
bureaucratic control has become almost instinctive with thoughtful
people. The habit of working in watertight compartments, and repressing
every spontaneous activity that cannot be forced into the strait-jacket
of official routine, inspires observant critics with distrust even
of rural library schemes conducted on strictly official lines under
education committees. To put the control of both urban and rural
libraries in the preoccupied hands of those whose attention is centred
in schools, discipline, and organized education, would be a blow at
the freedom and elasticity of the library. After all, the problem
of the young person is much the same everywhere, and education may
for the most part be reduced to a system. People who have grown up
and developed personality, however, will not submit to have their
intellectual nutriment doled out on a system. They must have a say in
managing and developing their own libraries, and in choosing the books
they are to read.
The notion of a Libraries Board side by side with and independent of
the Board of Education would find no support in this country. Nor are
we likely to see State library commissions on the American model,
though we may as well digest the lesson from the United States, where
they certainly know how to manage libraries so that they bulk large in
the social consciousness. Co-operation, but not subordination, must
be the watchword. The department of the general Board of Education
charged with supervision of the national system of libraries would
contain, besides those who are educators in the widest sense of the
term, representatives of those versed in the government and the actual
administration of public libraries, from the British Museum and the
university libraries downwards. Such a combination would be less likely
than the mere education committees of to-day to negative the proposals
of those who understand the needs of libraries and of the people who
use them. The local committees would likewise be well-seasoned with
co-opted members representing all the varied intellectual interests of
each locality, and, above all, representing the actual readers, the
people most concerned in each library’s well-being. Local initiative
must be welcomed, not merely tolerated: it is the vital element of
progress. In between would come the regional committees, charged with
the maintenance of the central supplemental libraries, and with all the
general activities carried on throughout each great library province.
Thus, surely, the proper equilibrium between the central co-ordinating
body and local volition would be safely established.
FOOTNOTES:
[27] cp. America:--“In towns where there is more than one library
accessible to the public, these should reach as soon as possible some
_modus vivendi_ that will prevent the useless duplication of any class
of literature. This may usually be done by agreeing to specialize.
For example, in Chicago such an agreement has been made by the Public
Library, the John Crerar Library, and the Newberry Library. The Public
Library specializes in general literature, the John Crerar in science,
and the Newberry in history, economics, and so on. In pursuance of
this policy, the Newberry Library has even transferred to the John
Crerar its medical collection, which had reached a considerable size.
Such action is evidently a long step toward the complete understanding
between civic institutions that is so much to be desired; and it
deserves the highest commendation.” Bostwick: _The American Public
Library_, pp. 73-4. Similar specialization has been effected in the
Astor, Lenox, Bar Association, Academy of Medicine, and Columbia
University Libraries in New York.
[28] There are great irregularities in the distribution of these
libraries; for instance, the ratepayer in Holborn has to walk on the
average 540 yards to get to a library; in Camberwell he would have
to go 1,030 yards; in Wandsworth 1,400; while in the huge borough of
Woolwich, if it were all built up, he would have to travel about 2,400
yards. The majority of the boroughs, however, only expect their readers
to walk between 500 and 1,000 yards.
If we consider the provision of libraries in proportion to the
population, we find that the extreme variations are that Hampstead
supplies a library for every 14,000 inhabitants, while 75,000
inhabitants in Stepney share one between them.
But the demand for library facilities is not the same in all the
boroughs, for we find that while in Hampstead 125 out of every 1,000
of its inhabitants are registered as using the library, in Shoreditch
only 29 per 1,000 avail themselves of the facilities which exist in
that borough. The effect of this is that the number of _readers_ per
library varies considerably, for while Poplar and Hammersmith share a
library or branch between 1,200 readers, Stoke Newington and Chelsea
are satisfied with one establishment for 4,600 readers.
(John McKillop: “The Present Position of London Municipal Libraries
with suggestions for Increasing their Efficiency,” in _Library
Association Record_, Dec. 1906.)
[29] Rye, R. A., _The Libraries of London_ (1910)--“Preliminary Survey.”
[30] In a lecture at the School of Librarianship, University College,
London, on May 23rd, 1921.
[31] “Sometimes a discovery of vital moment lies concealed for
many years in a little known periodical; the most striking recent
case is that of Mendel’s experiments, now the inspiration of the
most productive school of modern biology, described in 1865 in the
periodical of a natural history society in Brünn but buried until 1900,
when a happy chance revealed them.” _Times_, June 29, 1921--“Indexing
of Technical Literature.”
[32] “A union catalogue of the current periodicals preserved in
the German libraries, published in 1914, comprised some 17,000
entries. A similar list for the periodicals filed in the libraries
of the United Kingdom, prepared in 1914-15 by some English State and
copyright librarians, was submitted for publication to the Department
of Scientific and Industrial Research, but the proposal met with no
encouragement. Yet the compilation of such a list is an essential
preliminary to the proper national organization of knowledge. For a
union list indicates the relative strength and weakness of our national
libraries in respect of their periodical collections: it enables
the librarian to correct the latter without unduly increasing the
expenditure of the library in that department of literature.” _Nature_,
June 9, 1921--“Co-operative Indexing of Periodical Literature.”
[33] _Edward Edwards_, by Thomas Greenwood, p. 137.
[34] Ibid.
[35] Bostwick: _The American Public Library_, p. 28.
[36] Friedel: _Training for Librarianship_, p. 176.
[37] “The amount produced by the penny rate varies from borough to
borough within very wide limits. The wealthy City of Westminster
receives nearly £23,000 for every penny of its imposed rate; Kensington
comes next with £9,500, and the others fall gradually till we find that
Stoke Newington receives only £1,400. But to estimate the burden it is
necessary to consider the produce of the penny rate in relation to the
number of inhabitants, and in doing this we find that while every 1,000
inhabitants in Westminster can raise for library purposes £128, in
the over-burdened east and south-east, Poplar and Camberwell can only
raise £20, while Stepney comes lowest on the list with £19 per 1,000
inhabitants. But this does not express the whole of the burden, for
while 1,000 inhabitants of wealthy Westminster have the power to spend
£128, they find that their five libraries, well stocked with books and
liberally staffed, cost them only £65, while Poplar, which finds six
[actually four] establishments too little for its needs, must perforce
expend the whole of the £19 per 1,000 citizens that it is enabled
to raise.” J. McKillop: _The Present Position of London Municipal
Libraries_. These figures were put down in 1907; the present situation
may be understood from later statistics. The areas and populations are
similar.
FROM L.C.C. LONDON STATISTICS, 1913-4.
Charge falling
on Rates. Amount
Poplar 4 Libraries .99 £3,080
Kensington 3 ” .61 £5,905
Westminster 4 ” .43 £11,784
FROM L.C.C. STATISTICAL ABSTRACT, 1920.
Assessable Value. 1d. produces
Poplar £835,583 £3,482
Kensington £2,451,335 £10,214
Westminster £7,011,845 £29,216
Current estimate at Poplar, £8,318 to 2.17d. in £.
Poplar, it should be noted, has one of the most efficient library
systems in London, though the buildings are not pretentious and the
furniture is for use and not ornament. To provide and work this
admirable system something like an economic miracle had to be worked,
for so narrow was the financial margin that as the borough librarian
picturesquely put it, if a few slates fell off the roof the cost of
replacing them had to come out of the book fund.
[38] J. McKillop: _Present Position of London Municipal Libraries_.
[39] Ibid.
[40] Ibid.
[41] Ibid.
[42] Adult Education Committee: _Third Interim Report_, 20.
[43] “The public libraries and museums should be remitted to special
committees of the education authority. On each of these committees it
would be desirable to co-opt representatives of voluntary organizations
and societies specially interested in the work of the committees, such
as local educational bodies, scientific societies, and art clubs.
Librarians and curators should, of course, have direct access to their
respective committees and the fullest possible scope for their powers
and special knowledge.” Adult Education Committee: _Third Interim
Report_, 56.
[44] Bostwick: _The American Public Library_, p. 95.
[45] Adult Education Committee: _Third Interim Report_, 19.
[46] Adult Education Committee: _Third Interim Report_, par. 9-12.
VI
TRAINING IN LIBRARIANSHIP
The pioneers of our municipal libraries were mostly men who had had
no experience of library administration, and learned their craft
and coached their assistants after studying the best type of older
libraries, improvising new methods to suit new circumstances. In
1876 the American Library Association was founded, and in 1877 the
Library Association of the United Kingdom. Their objects were first,
educational, through the medium of personal intercourse and the
exchange of information; and secondly propagandist, the furtherance
of the library movement. In some of the larger towns classes were
carried on for the instruction of the staff; and in 1884 the Library
Association drew up an examination syllabus, which was a first step
in defining the proper qualifications of a librarian. Classes open
to any assistant were held at various centres, and in 1893 an annual
summer school was started. The Association next appointed an Education
Committee, which before long co-operated with the London School of
Economics in holding courses of lectures, conducted correspondence
classes, elicited similar efforts from provincial branches, and
held yearly examinations. Certificates were granted in the separate
subjects, Literary History, Bibliography, Classification, Cataloguing,
Library Organization, and Library Routine; and when an assistant
had taken these seriatim he might obtain a full diploma, after he
had shown some knowledge of Latin and of a modern foreign language,
and written an original thesis on an appropriate subject. The weak
point of this admirable programme was that it did not provide for
systematic training or even for continuous study. Perhaps it was an
initial mistake to award certificates in single subjects, for the
majority of those gaining such certificates never approached the final
stage, and in a dozen years less than a dozen candidates won the
diploma. But the standard of the qualifications had to be adapted to
the educational level of the ordinary library assistant, and to the
extreme disadvantages under which he laboured. His hours were long, his
pay was low, and, penny rate libraries being uniformly understaffed,
he could not be spared to attend many classes, even if any were held
in his neighbourhood. The diploma scheme of the Library Association
is still in being, and provides an alternative method of qualifying
for professional certificates to working assistants who are unable to
benefit by the training system next to be described.
During the war, whilst the Adult Education Committee were trying to
find a place for libraries in a comprehensive plan of reconstruction,
the Carnegie United Kingdom Trustees were in consultation with the
Library Association on the question of a more thorough system of
training. The University of London School of Librarianship came into
existence as the outcome of these conferences in 1919, a few months
before the new Act. This was a momentous event in the history of the
profession. The School is a department of University College, the
largest school of the University; its curriculum fits into the scheme
of the Faculty of Arts; the students participate in the social and
intellectual life of the college. Thus it is not a separate vocational
institution, like the majority of the American library schools, but
part of a great foundation dedicated to the liberal arts and sciences.
The normal course of training occupies two years, and students must
devote their whole time to lectures, private study, and practical work;
but for the benefit of assistants who cannot throw up their occupation,
and also of booksellers, publishers’ assistants, and others desirous
of knowing something of library economy and useful subjects like
classification and indexing, part-time attendance is allowed, by which
the training is spread over a period varying from three to five years.
But it must be continuous. This and the thoroughness of a college
training, coupled with the initial requirement of a general education
of matriculation standard, make the advent of the school a great
stride forward. In time, the training may develop into a postgraduate
course, and instruction may be given in a series of advanced subjects,
such as Historical Bibliography and the Bibliography and History of
Scholarship, Latin, Greek, Biblical, Celtic, Romance, Teutonic and
Scandinavian, courses which the present writer was able to introduce as
possible subjects for study and research into the Library Association’s
syllabus, when he was Hon. Secretary of their Education Committee.