Student Autonomy and Developmental Considerations
Student autonomy plays a critical role in determining the success of a standalone library. In elementary education, particularly for students in early grades, autonomy is limited. These students rely heavily on structured routines, adult guidance, and teacher-facilitated transitions. As such, libraries embedded within the main academic building are more accessible and more frequently used. Physical proximity ensures that even reluctant readers encounter books regularly, fostering incidental literacy development (Todd & Kuhlthau, 2005). When the library is housed externally, teachers must consciously schedule visits, and younger children must be supervised during transitions—often causing disruptions in instructional time or leading to reduced frequency of use (Kachel, 2013).
By contrast, secondary students possess greater independence. Middle and high school students are typically trusted to navigate campus spaces with minimal supervision. In these contexts, a standalone library may function effectively as a destination for research, group projects, and quiet study. However, even for older students, standalone libraries require thoughtful scheduling integration. Without designated times or direct instructional tie-ins, even highly capable students may prioritize convenience over engagement, especially in schools with tight academic schedules or a lack of schoolwide library culture (Gavigan & Kurtts, 2011).
At the post-secondary level, autonomy is highest. College students are accustomed to navigating multi-building campuses and seek out libraries as self-directed learners. For these students, the location of the library is far less consequential than its quality. Studies show that academic libraries with collaborative zones, extended hours, and on-site support services (such as tutoring or writing centers) draw high student traffic regardless of their placement (Bennett, 2007; Stewart & Davis, 2019). The expectation that students will self-regulate their learning and use academic resources independently makes the standalone model a natural fit at the university level.
Equity Implications
The decision to house a library in a separate building also has equity implications that extend beyond infrastructure. Libraries often serve as academic safety nets for students who may not have access to books, internet, quiet study spaces, or adult guidance at home (Lance & Kachel, 2018). For these students—disproportionately from lower-income, multilingual, or underserved backgrounds—the school library may be their only consistent access to information and technology. If that access is diminished by physical barriers, such as unsafe crossings, long walking distances, or scheduling conflicts, the students most in need are also the most likely to be excluded (Krashen, 2011).
Conversely, a standalone library that is well-integrated and intentionally inclusive can become a powerful tool for equity. If the space is accessible after school, contains multilingual materials, features culturally responsive programming, and is staffed by librarians trained in inclusive practices, it can address educational gaps in tangible ways (Clark & Teravainen-Goff, 2018). The ability to remain open beyond typical school hours also provides an advantage to students with complex home lives who may need flexible access to academic resources.
Still, these equity benefits are contingent on systemic planning and support. Funding must be available to staff the library adequately, purchase representative materials, and maintain open hours. Transportation solutions must be developed to accommodate students with disabilities or those living in high-risk environments. Without these supports, a physically beautiful library risks becoming a symbol of inequality—visible but inaccessible to the very populations it seeks to uplift (Woolner, 2010).
Recommendations for School Leaders and Planners
To maximize the potential of a standalone library, school leaders must engage in comprehensive, equity-informed planning. First, stakeholder engagement is critical. Library design should involve not only administrators and architects but also teachers, students, parents, and community members. These voices help ensure that the library meets real academic and social needs (Bundy, 2004).
Second, curricular integration must be prioritized. The library should not function as an extracurricular space but as an academic hub. School leaders should encourage co-teaching models, ensure regular scheduling of library time, and incorporate library use into lesson plans across subjects (Todd & Kuhlthau, 2005).
Third, accessibility must be addressed. For elementary schools, this may mean creating safe, sheltered walkways and hiring additional staff for transitions. For secondary schools, it may involve building sufficient break time into schedules and ensuring that all students understand the resources available to them.
Fourth, community partnerships can expand the impact of a standalone library. Collaborations with local public libraries, cultural institutions, or universities can bring additional programming, staffing support, and shared resources to the space (Gislason, 2010).
Fifth, library usage and effectiveness should be monitored through ongoing data collection. Schools should track student visits, circulation rates, teacher collaboration, and student outcomes. Surveys and focus groups can provide qualitative insights, ensuring that the library evolves in response to community needs (Stewart & Davis, 2019).
Conclusion
The standalone school library represents both a physical structure and a symbolic vision of what education can be—curious, collaborative, inclusive, and community-rooted. When thoughtfully designed and carefully implemented, standalone libraries can serve as transformative spaces that elevate student learning, deepen engagement, and foster a culture of inquiry. They offer architectural and pedagogical opportunities to redefine the school’s relationship to literacy, technology, and equity.
However, their success depends on intentionality. Without equitable access, curricular integration, and institutional support, a standalone library risks becoming a visually appealing but functionally marginal space. Especially in early education settings, physical separation may reduce incidental reading opportunities and access for vulnerable populations. As with any educational innovation, the value of a standalone library lies not in its novelty but in its utility.
Ultimately, the decision to house a school library in a separate building should be guided by a clear educational philosophy, robust community input, and a commitment to equity. Space is never neutral; it reflects priorities, values, and aspirations. If we believe that all students deserve access to a welcoming, well-resourced, and intellectually rich environment, then the standalone library—executed with care—can be a powerful vehicle for educational transformation.
APA Reference List
Bennett, S. (2007). Designing for uncertainty: Three approaches to library learning spaces. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 33(2), 165–179. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2006.12.005
Bundy, A. (2004). Joint-use libraries: The ultimate form of cooperation. Resource Sharing & Information Networks, 17(1–2), 67–77. https://doi.org/10.1300/J121v17n01_06
City of Fort Lupton. (2023). Fort Lupton Public and High School Library Project Report. https://www.fortluptonco.gov/
Clark, C., & Teravainen-Goff, A. (2018). School libraries: A literature review of current provision and evidence of impact. National Literacy Trust. https://literacytrust.org.uk/research-services/research-reports/school-libraries-literature-review-current-provision-and-evidence-impact/
Cox, M. (2014). Books for Bougainville: Building a community library. International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions (IFLA) Newsletter.
Gavigan, K., & Kurtts, S. (2011). Shared spaces and roles: Collaboration between school librarians and special education teachers. Teacher Librarian, 38(3), 30–35.
Gislason, N. (2010). Architectural design and the learning environment: A framework for school design research. Learning Environments Research, 13(2), 127–145. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10984-010-9071-x
Kachel, D. E. (2013). School library research summarized: A graduate class project. Mansfield University School Library & Information Technologies Department. https://keithcurrylance.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/MU-LibAdvoBklt2013.pdf
Krashen, S. (2011). Protecting students against the effects of poverty: Libraries. New England Reading Association Journal, 46(2), 17–21.
Lance, K. C., & Kachel, D. E. (2018). Why school librarians matter: What years of research tell us. Phi Delta Kappan, 99(7), 15–20. https://doi.org/10.1177/0031721718775707
Lippman, P. C. (2010). Can the physical environment have an impact on the learning environment? CELE Exchange, 2010/13, OECD.
Lonsdale, M. (2003). Impact of school libraries on student achievement: A review of the research. Australian Council for Educational Research. https://research.acer.edu.au/tll_misc/3/
Morrison, R. (2017). Renovating the College of Education Library. University of Florida Libraries Report.
Stewart, C. S., & Davis, K. (2019). The impact of library redesign on student learning and engagement. College & Research Libraries, 80(3), 386–400. https://doi.org/10.5860/crl.80.3.386
Strong-Wilson, T., & Ellis, J. (2007). Children and place: Reggio Emilia’s environment as third teacher. Theory into Practice, 46(1), 40–47. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405840709336547
Todd, R. J., & Kuhlthau, C. C. (2005). Student learning through Ohio school libraries: A summary of the Ohio research study. Ohio Educational Library Media Association.
Woolner, P. (2010). The design of learning spaces. Continuum.