5 Ways I Think Public Libraries Can Continue to Improve

We love libraries here at Pages Unbound! From books to computers to programs, libraries offer many services that support their communities and promote equal access. Still, there’s always room for improvement, right? Here are some of my thoughts on how public libraries can continue to improve.

---

Advertise tutoring services as a positive tool for everyone–not just struggling students.

Often, I see “cute” little social media posts showing frustrated students who need tutoring because they’re apparently just so bad at school, but the library can help with their tutoring program! I don’t like the implication that tutoring is only for failing students because it stigmatizes the process and makes it seem like people who need tutoring should be ashamed of it. I’d rather see libraries advertise tutoring as a positive tool that can be used by everyone as a way to improve. Firstly because students should not be encouraged to wait until they are failing to seek tutoring. By that point, the semester is usually over and their grades can’t make the same improvement they would if they had been getting feedback all along. Secondly, even “good” students can benefit from personalized feedback. Showing some motivated-looking students in the pictures and writing a blurb about how tutoring is beneficial for all would go a long way towards encouraging more students to try it.

Stop making jokes about how hard math is/how no one likes math.

It seems like libraries attract many workers who see themselves as “humanities-oriented” and who are self-proclaimed, “Bad at math.” I have heard many librarians over the years joke about how they can’t do basic math functions like addition and subtraction. I have heard them assume that, “No one likes math,” because, apparently, they personally don’t. I even see the aforementioned tutoring services offered explicitly in connection with math, as if it is to be understood that MATH IS VERY DIFFICULT and everyone struggles.

This…isn’t true. I really liked math as a kid. Lots of kids like math. It always felt very alienating for me as a kid to go to the library and watch the staff struggle to add up my minutes read and hear them joke about math like it’s a dirty word. Libraries are supposed to be all about making learning accessible and fun these days. That should include math, even if all the staff aren’t equally comfortable with their own math skills. They don’t have to solve equations flawlessly in front of the public, just not unthinkingly disseminate the ideas that everyone should find math scary, or that people can only be good at one thing–English or math.

Don’t worry about going viral.

I like seeing library staff making funny videos as much as anyone. However, sometimes it seems like libraries are taking social media advice that isn’t particularly meant for libraries. I check library social media pages to see what programs and services are being offered, and to learn about closures. I don’t follow them for the pun of the day, cat memes, and other non-library content that gets a lot of “likes” but isn’t related to informing the public about how the library works and what it offers.

Going viral can feel nice, but I don’t know if churning out a bunch of funny content just for the views makes sense for libraries. The goal surely is to appeal to their service area so local people understand what the library can do for them–and consequently then walk into the library to increase circulation, program stats, etc. A secondary goal could be to inform people in general about what libraries offer–and humor could help with this. But high views on random, non-library content won’t translate into increased library usage. And cluttering a library page with non-library content is frankly baffling.

Remove library policies that allow patrons to be removed for body odor.

These types of policies still seem to be floating around. They are explicitly aimed at people experiencing homelessness and they are very unwelcoming. Yes, other patrons might be bothered by body odor, but it’s not a person’s fault if they do not have access to bathing and laundry facilities, and it seems cruel to tell them they cannot stay in a safe space because of that. Libraries are public buildings and that means people will be exposed to other people from all walks of life. And that is okay.

Remove the one-desk model–or accept that all staff at the front desk should be trained (and paid for) reference duties.

Back in ye olden days, most libraries had two desks–the circulation desk and the reference desk. The staff at the circulation desk only did circulation duties–checking books in and out, and looking up accounts. The staff at the reference desk did reference duties–looking up the locations of materials, suggesting books that could help with research or providing suggestions for read-alikes, placing inter-library loans, etc. The reference staff traditionally had to have more education/degrees and were subsequently paid more. Then, libraries thought customer service would be improved by a one-desk model. This meant patrons did not have to puzzle through which desk to approach, or get annoyed if they approached one desk and were asked to talk to someone at the other desk instead. Now, everywhere seems to have a one-desk model.

The difficulty? Patrons don’t know if they are talking to a circulation staff member who has only been trained on circulation duties, or a reference librarian. In my personal experience, the reference librarians provide much more helpful reference services (no surprise–they are trained on these duties). The other problem is that the circulation staff are now doing the same job as the reference staff–but they are still usually getting paid less. If library administration want circulation staff to be doing reference at the front desk, that’s fine–but they need their pay to reflect this. Having a one-desk model sometimes seems like a sneaky way to save money because the public usually do not know the difference between job roles and assume everyone at the desk is equally trained and equally paid. But many libraries have begun talking about equity in the past few years. Why not take action with a little pay equity?

What ways do you think the public library can improve?