Now, normally I'm all for boosting public spending, but this is just a completely whimsical, wishy-washy, impossible idea of a policy. It's unimplementable. He's suggesting the government buys thousands, possibly *hundreds* of thousands, of books, and then puts them all into buildings open to the public where anybody can just go in and take them home for free? What's stopping anybody from stealing entire shelves of books? And people have trouble finding a book in their own home bookshelf, how can you possibly organize books systematically so that you could find what you want in an entire building filled with nothing but bookshelves?
It'll never work.
In his defense I once had the following conversation with my dad when I was a kid:
**Me:** "Hey Dad, I just had a great idea, you know how we have stores like blockbuster where you can rent movies and games".
**Dad:** "Yes, I am familiar with the concept of rental stores."
**Me:** "Well what if there was a store were able to rent books for a short amount of time, so you didn't have to buy them!"
**Dad:** "You mean like a library."
Read the [source article](https://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/politics/2018/03/15/schuette-education/32958893/
The 'reading centers' would be in schools. Many public schools no longer have libraries. More importantly, a 'reading center' staffed by 'reading coaches' does not sound like a library. It sounds like a reading resource room, which exist at schools in many states to give struggling readers individual intervention services... in the same way math resource rooms exist, and there are rooms to assist students with other challenges, both academic and physical/sensory.
But by all means, criticize a politician for voicing support for public schools for a change. As long as teachers support the idea (I don't know if they do), this idea should be celebrated. Don't lampoon it because some blogger misunderstood what he was reading.
Source: I coordinated a literacy project at a Title I school for 7 years.
**Replies below because thread locked:**
>Thanks to the GOP.
Both the GOP and Democratic party support privatization efforts of public education (greed is a bipartisan issue). It's just that the GOP has additional incentives (the spread of religious schools, destruction of teacher unions, etc.). Both parties claim to support public education while harming public schools, including school libraries. What state doesn't have a charter school system, for example?
Charters are founded without teacher unions, usually operate with a bevy of laws that create an unequal playing field in comparison to traditional public schools, usually lack financial transparency in how public money is being spent by the corporation or nonprofit running the school, and statistically on average perform no better than the traditional public schools they are helping close. The end result in some cities/states is the elimination of traditional schools, zero improvement in student achievement, but cost savings from elimination of teacher unions, reduction of teacher salaries, and the flight of teachers to districts or states where they can still make a living wage (leaving their old schools to a revolving door of new teaching recruits who stick around only until they can get a career position elsewhere or they quit).
One nonprofit outfit actually gives new (non-teacher non-education related) graduates a summer crash course in being a teacher and then asks them to only serve 2 years, throwing them into the worst performing schools in the nation. How's that working out? About as well as you'd expect.
>Teaching basic reading, writing and math is a basic fundamental function of grade school, what have they been doing instead?
Reading resource officers and reading volunteers serve children who are below grade level in reading. These students need specialized, individual attention. That's the function of a resource officer working in a resource room.
The leading indicators of student achievement are the income and education level of the parents. Many negatives trend with poverty and [half of all Americans](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/census-data-half-of-us-poor-or-low-income/
) are low income or living in poverty. The most important factor in a child's classroom performance is his home life. This is not the fault of the school system. It's a vast issue of societal norms, economic policy, access to food, access to healthcare, access to the basics of a safe life, mandatory minimum vacation leave, maternity and family leave, a criminal justice system focused on punishment rather than rehabilitation, and a cavalcade of other measures by which America generally lags far behind on when compared to the rest of the free developed world.
>I've never been in a school with out a library lmao.
I have. My children currently attend a public school that has no library. Their previous school almost closed its library... this after more than 10 years of budgeting $0 for its library (aside from the librarian's minimum wage 4 hour salary.... the librarian had to fundraise for books and supplies on her own). There was an outcry when the district tried to finally kill the library by allocating $0 to the librarian's salary.
>So he wants a library with tutors.
No. A resource officer working in a resource room is not a library in any sense of the word.
Oh come on, in /r/books of all places people shouldn't have this much trouble reading the actual article and quoted statement. He's talking about programs to focus on improving kids reading, not simply libraries.
I get it, he also doesn't want to fund this program of his and Republicans don't have great history regarding funding libraries, but aren't those facts alone enough? Is it really necessary to purposefully misconstrue what the man says in order to make him sound like a complete idiot?