David,
Several years ago, we worked on a project for Marysville Getchell High School in Marysville, WA, based on the Small Learning Community (SLC) model. The school was organized around four small, autonomous high schools with a shared commons building for dining and fitness. During the design process, we explored various approaches to the library, ranging from a centralized model to a distributed one across the four schools.
Ultimately, the district chose the distributed model for many of the reasons you highlighted in your post. We divided the typical library square footage into multiple spaces throughout the campus, spanning multiple floors. Each school had its own primary library with curated collections aligned to its thematic focus, complemented by specialized "libraries" located closer to programs like science and CTE.
At the time, one of the main concerns was loss prevention. Our research found that open, distributed libraries experience only a negligible increase in losses annually. The district decided that the benefits of accessibility and relevance outweighed the potential for increased losses.
However, over time, the district shifted away from the SLC model in favor of a comprehensive high school structure for various reasons. Under this new model, maintaining a distributed library system has proven to be more challenging.
Lessons Learned:
1. A strong champion is essential to sustain and advocate for this type of library model.
2. Librarians need to stay closely connected to teaching teams to ensure collections remain relevant and well-curated.
3. A dedicated home base with sufficient storage for the librarian is highly beneficial.
If you'd like to discuss this further, feel free to reach out!
------------------------------
Todd Ferking AIA
DLR Group, Inc.
Seattle WA
------------------------------