In recent years the number of “educator strands” at comic conventions has increased dramatically—a good thing. Usually these are designed for “teachers and librarians,” a grouping that publishers have latched on to as well, perhaps for convenience. In fact, many times I’ve eagerly consumed a publisher’s pamphlet on “using graphic novels in schools” only to find that the content is addressed to librarians and includes lots of information on collection development but very little on curriculum.

Nothing wrong with that in principle. Librarians have been both early adopters and ongoing leaders in championing graphic novels as legitimate reading materials for young people. Yet school librarians in particular require more support when it comes to pedagogy and curriculum—it’s not enough simply to guide them on selecting and shelving age-appropriate titles. Besides, most of them have become quite adept at these things, and both professional organizations and leading journals continue to provide support in these areas.  

When I give workshops on literacy on comics, I’m usually quite impressed with teacher-librarians, and it took some reflection to figure out why. Classroom teachers, a group that I belong to, ask great but difficult questions about assessment, classroom management, and the nuts-and-bolts of literacy. The public librarians are, to make a gross generalization, typically the most passionate and well-read when it comes to the medium—it’s easy to see how their excitement gets conveyed to youth. The teacher-librarians, in some very obvious ways, seem to split the difference, balancing motivation and skills instruction and, like any good educator, dovetailing the two whenever possible.

So we have two, maybe three, constituencies here. Why, then, do both providers of professional development and publishers continue to treat all three as a single monolithic group? For one thing, it makes sense to since there are huge areas of overlap—certainly they share more common ground between them than they do with creators, fans, publishers, and so on. Still, to lose track of the important differences that exist between classroom teachers and librarians is to run the risk of underserving both groups, with the former in particular danger when it comes to graphic novels.   

The differences between the two camps’ approach to reading reflects, in a way, a division that exists within K-12, and that’s the admittedly reductionist distinction between “learning to read” and “reading to learn.” The break usually occurs somewhere around grade 4, when the emphasis transitions from basic literacy skills to reading for information and edification. Perhaps this is why Barbara Moon, a former classroom teacher and currently a consultant to New York’s Suffolk County Library System, has noticed that “the literacy objectives for schools and public libraries are most closely aligned for preschool children.” In my experience, which tends to be at higher grade levels, librarians lean toward “reading to learn” although again this is quite a simplification: teaching librarians often engage students in a variety of activities that directly improve fluency, comprehension, and other critical areas.

There’s another way to look at the classroom/library dichotomy: “learning to read” versus “loving to read.” Tension between the two has simmered for a long time, so it should come as no surprise that it extends to graphic novels. It’s not that the two aims are mutually exclusive—creating the proverbial lifelong reader isn’t just inspiring, it’s sound pedagogy, too. Students who are thoroughly engaged with texts are more likely to respond to them in sustained and meaningful ways, more likely to make the effort to self-monitor and boost their own comprehension by asking questions, learning unfamiliar vocabulary words, and so on. Graphic novels are superb literacy resources in this sense, motivating students to build skills that can then transfer to a range of print and non-print texts. (Still, it would be great if more publishers and programmers realized that “teaching comics” and “teaching with comics” are not the same thing. Likewise, nor is approaching comics as literature and using them as a vehicle for content delivery, i.e., “reading to learn.” Yet frequently publishers, and even creators, conflate all these issues under the umbrella of “using comics in schools” or “marketing comics to educators.”) 

Somewhere along the way, though, classroom teachers, much to their own regret, have found themselves putting less emphasis on developing reader motivation. There’s simply been too much pressure to focus on skills covered in high-stakes testing, where “enjoyment” is not measured. If publishers and creators want to address the needs of classroom teachers, they would do well to keep such considerations in mind. If they had their way, though, most classroom teachers would incorporate a librarian-like nurturing approach. Barbara Kiefer, the Charlotte S. Huck Professor of Children's Literature at Ohio State University, confirms this. “I think the best teachers and the best librarians care about loving to read as the goal of any literacy program. Teachers need to be knowledgeable about reading strategies and provide support as children become more accomplished readers. Librarians can support children in deepening and broadening their responses to all types of literature.”

Then, in response to a question from me about the role of leveled readers, Prof. Kiefer, who has revised the last five editions of McGraw-Hill’s Charlotte Huck's Children's Literature, added:  “Personally I feel leveled books have a very small part to play in the overall reading program and I abhor the programs that limit children to reading only books that are written at their ‘level.’” Yet Stone Arch, a publisher of graphic novels for the school market uses the popular Fountas & Pinnell system to level its titles. TOON Books uses these measurements, and adds Lexile and Reading Recovery.

So… good thing? Bad thing?

In defense of leveled readers, they get a bad rap largely due to some educators over-relying on them, as if quality content were irrelevant. Also, if teachers never have students read above their level, they’re abusing or misunderstanding the very pedagogy behind readability—students are supposed to be gradually exposed to more difficult texts in order to reach the “next level.” Still, it’s interesting to note the chasm that can be opened up on this issue, one that marks a point of divergence for teachers and librarians.

But am I, overall, guilty of exaggerating the inherent dissimilarity of these groups in order to make a few specific points? Perhaps. Indeed, Moon offers an insight that would never have occurred to me: “In my experience, the literacy objectives of teachers and librarians tend to be most closely aligned to the institution, rather than the profession. In other words, a school librarian will usually follow the objectives of the school in concert with the classroom teachers. A public librarian will focus on the objectives set by the public library.”

And unfortunately, the objectives set by school districts these days tend to stress items for which they are held in strict accountability by their state DOE. Cathy Puett Miller, President of TLA, Inc., and author of the new eBook, Powerful Picture Books: 180 Ideas for Promoting Content Learning, helps clarify this point: “Most teachers feel obligated to be teaching the ‘mechanics’ of reading almost exclusively because that is what they are judged upon and the results of their progress in those areas determines in many cases funding or ‘AYP’ (adequate yearly progress) for their schools. It is much harder to quantify motivation and long-term reading habits.” But she is quick to add that “Even school librarians, however, are being pulled in various directions, away from the love of reading. Traditionally their hearts have been devoted to that, but the proliferation of reward programs, an overuse of leveled readers, and other restrictive elements are a mainstay in many school libraries as well. On top of that, librarians are often the primary technology resource, which takes more of their time away from promoting that love of reading.”

Sounds rather bleak, doesn’t it? Especially when one considers this additional point Miller makes: “Classroom teachers and school librarians' roles are moving closer because of the ‘school focus’ on numbers.”

There is an easy-to-overlook bright spot in this scenario: parents. As Moon remarks, “I think parents are the key element in this discussion. I cannot overemphasize the important role parents play in creating a literate child.” Miller also notes the critical job that parents and community do in providing “a rich diet of motivation.”

For me, the engaged parent represents the perfect middle ground between “learning to read” and “loving to read”—for what parent would want to choose between the two? So perhaps publishers and professional development providers, if they continue to lump teachers and librarians together, would do well to conceptualize this audience as parents—parents who occasionally shift from the mechanics of reading to the purpose of reading and back again, but always do so with the big picture in mind. 

A curriculum developer and consultant, Peter Gutiérrez is an Eisner-nominated comics pro and an NCTE spokesperson in the area of graphic novels. His clients include TOON Books, Sesame Workshop, Sylvan Learning, and Scholastic. He is also a member of NCTE's Commission on Media and serves on the board of the National Association for Media Literacy Education. Peter writes on comics, film, and pop culture for publications such as School Library Journal, Screen Education, ForeWord Magazine, and The Financial Times. He can be reached at fiifgutierrez@gmail.com.