I have to agree with the majority in that the Learning Commons will indeed be expensive. I can't even wrap my mind around $4 million dollar school budget cuts! Are the students able to come in with their own computers? Are more students doing that for themselves rather than expecting the school to provide? I am emailed stuff from my daughter's language schools and told to print myself rather than purchase a textbook. I have a lot of computer experience and it is frustrating to have the technology constanly being changed - not necessarily improved. There is a tremendous amount of freeware out there.

It is hard for me to say if this will save money or not since I do not work in the library. The comparison is hard for me to imagine. But I think that any effective idea that really produces results will always save money in the future because you don't have to do major overhauls to fix problems. Just a little maintenance and tweeking to fit changes in demands will be needed.

Well, not to sound like I'm copying the consensus here, but I'd have to agree that in the beginning, the changes will cost more. I guess it's like the quote, "You have to spend money to save money." I think that in an ideal setting, it would take more money at the beginning to get everything going but then it wouldn't cost as much to maintain it... at least I think that's the case... but then again, I think about how quickly technology changes and how current things can suddenly become outdated a few months later. Hmm... maybe it won't become cheaper after all... unless libraries are willing to start and establish PLC's on computers that they'll have to keep for a long time? (not too foreign of a concept I'm sure for some in the school setting.)

These new structures all cost money in the beginning. Most of the technology provided to the library is from government grants, so it isn't really the schools money that is being spent. I think being keeping up with the world costs money. Providing what is best for the clients of the learning commons area will be a game of constatnt catch-up. The saving of money can mostly occur in keeping up with finding grants.

I think new changes will save money. It's better to use the free resources available. At first, the school will not save money, but eventually with time the school will save money. To build a more client and serviced based library money will need to be invest to implement the new library style.

I hope that the new structure saves the school money. I really like the idea of using everyone’s strengths in the library. There is no need to hire new people when you can tap into the talent and strength already on staff.

I don't think the structure would save the school money initially; in fact, it would require extra funding to get it going (we don't even have an endorsed media specialist right now). However, I think the model might prove itself to start saving money after the initial costs were absorbed. I agree with others' comments that online databases might be less expensive to support than some of the encyclopedias and other print reference materials that need to be constantly updated. My school recently spent a large sum of money on math "resource" books for each student, even though these materials are offered on-line (for free, with a password) as part of the math package. I think this money was wasted because we aren't currently set up as a learning commons. The idea of having both a teacher librarian and a teacher technologist at my school is pretty unlikely -- we only have 240 students, and it will be all we can do to get the position of full-time teacher librarian reinstated...

I think at my school we already have in place many of the features of the client side structure, so saving money would not be a result of completely giving it over to organizational transformation. I'd need to move around some of the shelving, to create more comfortable areas, and adjust the scheduling to be more flexible, and change the mind-set of the professionals in my building and possibly my district.

Initially I do not think that this move toward a more client based program will save the school district money, in fact over the next year we will most likely undergo cuts in the budget that definitely will affect staffing in the schools and may impact the traditional library facility. While we may be able to take advantage of internet programs, and eliminate the cost of purchased software, keeping the technological equipment up to date will be a struggle for us at this time.

On the one hand, technology is EXPENSIVE. And from an administrator’s point of view, I can imagine that building an effective learning commons doesn't look like an immediately worth-while investment. You buy the technology and then you have to spend the time and money on training and maintenance, AND the fact that four years down the road you have to update EVERYTHING.

However, on the other hand, I can see that an effective learning commons would pay off in the long run, because students would be engaged in school, feel more welcome/comfortable/safe, and would be gaining an education that is not only real, but foundational (easily built upon). I guess in my current school I see us spending so much money on staff to support at-risk students, but we really don't do a very good job of addressing their actual needs. Would it be more effective to, instead of hiring another progress monitor (case-worker for at risk students), to invest in technology AND training on literacy across the curriculum - especially for those teachers who teach at-risk kids but have no understanding of HOW to teach them and get them to learn? Don't get me wrong, I think that support staff are extremely important, I just think that hiring a new staff member doesn't necessarily bring about a solution to the problem.

If the purpose of a learning commons is to encourage authentic learning AND the staff is on board and willing to use the resources AND the learning commons is staffed with well trained, effective educators, then it is absolutely worth the money. I think if all of these factors are in place, then teachers will be more effective at teaching and will have more time to devote to at-risk students (and more support in helping them) and in the end, test scores will go up and the school will have to spend less on extra support staff for at-risk kids.

I also have no idea if these changes will actually save money. But, if anything else, it will definitely show that the school, faculty, and library/media center are utilizing the resources we already have. We must advocate for ourselves and show that we're wisely spending and using the funds already allotted to us. Also, our standardized test scores reflect changes for the better and that new strategies implemented are working. District residents are much more likely to support (vote for) additional school bonds and new buildings when they see positive growth and results from existing programs. I guess I see it as the more efficient use of existing resources.

No. This new system requires technology that our school has yet to find the funds to support. However, it will not take significant funds from the school because our librarian works constantly on grants and other ways (such as the PTSA) to bring in new and necessary technology to our our library.

Friday we had two major discussion during our staff meeting. First the estimated 2 million dollar budget cuts our district is facing, and the wish list for our PTA that includes promethium boards, projectors, and document cameras for each classroom (we have 12 classrooms). The total estimated bill for this new technology is about $35,000, an unimaginable cost during these economic times. I believe the answer to the question, will the learning commons save us money, has a multi-level answer. Thinking about our request for new technology, and the possibilities projectors and promethium boards offer a classroom teacher, I believe that the initial investment into these tools will be high but will pay off over time. Just as subscribing to podcasts, and creating specialized pathfinders will be time-consuming to initiate- they will pay off after time. I don't have a specific answer to this question, but I feel like the learning commons has a lot of potential to save schools money.

I don’t know if this new structure will save the school money. I do know that the space and the resources are more likely to be used so the investment into the library will have greater payoffs. I also know that student achievement will increase with another teacher on board collaborating to increase student achievement.

I think that money is one of the big reasons why our library is not more of a Learning Commons. We have a pretty big population for an elementary school, and I don't think that they know how to give teachers plan time without having library and computer lab being in the specials rotation. I also think that their would need to be some para-professional support in the library that is non-existent right now. This would also be an expense.

I wonder about the cost difference between some online resources and print resources. Would it be economical to buy a WorldBookOnline subscription rather than buy new encyclopedias every so often? I think that it is way more forward thinking to have the kids use an online encyclopedia, but sometimes I think you have to convince the administration with the money issue too.

Saving money seems to be the topic of the year. Our school is facing closure and anything we do to help it become a client-side environment might or might not save money. As far as technology is concerned, I don't think there is anything we can do that will save money. A client-side library will cost money no matter how you break it down. Providing other services like flexible scheduling, establishing PLC's and using Web 2.0 tools that are free will certainly be things that will not cost the district money.

I think the reason that our library is so far away from being a Learning Commons is because of the amount of money it takes to support this "new structure." I echo everyone else's reasons: technology costs, training costs, staffing costs but I think that that's OK. I feel like when we start putting a monetary value on the benefits of educational trends, it becomes very destructive. If our school districts see the value in this structure, they will fund it. I mean how many expensive initiatives have we been witness to over the years? If we looked only for solutions that saved us money, we wouldn't have the majority of wonderful things that we have in our schools. The question is not how much money will this save, but rather, how important is this?

The only money saver that I see is reducing the number of textbooks. On page 68, Dr. Loertscher says to create an initial budget by estimating the cost of a textbook for each student. If this budget is adequate, and the school is able to get rid of more than one textbook per student, then the school is saving money. The Living Textbooks scenerio described on page 76, shows that it is possible to get rid of textbooks and focus on electronic sources of information. I don't know how much would be saved versus all the new expenses in technology upkeep, databases, and other online subscriptions, but I see the potential to save money exists.

I don't think so. I can't see that happening in the short run....and as fast as technology changes, more expenditures are likely always to be on the horizon. However, I don't know that implementing a learning commons will cost the schools much in additional funding either. I believe the potential for positive student impact in many ways, makes the transition, and the expense to make the transition worth it.

Okay, I'll take a stab at ways that it could save money! One example might be if the Learning Commons creates more of a User-Centric Collection, there will be more resources put to use (e.g. books will be read, computer programs used, etc) so that we are not putting things on the shelf that are a waste of money and space. If students, especially, give input on the latest in technology that they are using, this can help us stay on the cutting edge instead of always being ten paces behind in resources we are implementing. This seems like a money saver.....to put resources in the schools that are actually being used and that are as current as possible. However, I don't know HOW MUCH of a savings it would be but......

I'm with everybody else, I don't know if these changes will save money. It seems difficult to determine this until you're actually in a library that is changing into a learning commons. What Ryan said makes sense, it's going to cost money to set this stuff up, especially if your library is far away from what would be referred to as a learning commons. I don't mean to sound like I'm Debbie Downer or anything, but I think completely revamping an entire library is an expensive undertaking. Learning commons sound amazing, and seem like they would improve everybody's use of the library, but we librarians better hope that we've got a very supportive admin team, staff, and community that is willing to spend the money on something like this.

By "this new structure" I suppose you mean learning commons.... From reading this chapter I cannot possibly see how schools will save money. I think that Dr. Loertscher even references this fact on page 68 and page 73. I see tremendous expenditures in the short run with new computers, updated software, a well mitigated security system, increased need for trained & experienced professionals, adequate support staff, and professional development to just mention a few. Perhaps in the long run costs will fall as the collaborative effort results in creating ways to save great amounts of money, but the short run will have such high needs accompanied by high budgetary needs.

Honestly, I have absolutely no idea if these changes will save the school money. In both schools that I have observed, the changes have been fairly minimal in transitioning to a Learning Commons, client-side organization. The flexible library schedule and establishing PLC's within the staff probably have not saved the school money. The only area I can think of that would possibly save money, is not having as many inservice days or paying an outsider to run an inservice.