Resource Alignment
Providing Curriculum Support in the School Library Media Center
Karen R. Lowe
Increased cries for accountability in public schools have motivated efforts to align the written, taught, and tested curriculum throughout the country so that achievement scores reflect improved student learning. An important component of this process is the alignment of resources --textbooks, instructional materials, and school library media center (SLMC) resources -- to the curriculum.
School systems in the northwest region of North Carolina have responded to the accountability demands by having teachers at each grade level develop alignment documents and pacing guides to use in teaching the curriculum. However, when teachers tried to match textbooks to goals and objectives of the curriculum in North Carolina, more than half of the curricula lacked textbook support in some areas. This motivated educators to envision the SLMC as the textbook, and resource-based learning as the mode of instruction. Naturally, the success of this approach depends on the quality of support provided by the instructional resources in the SLMC.
Strategies for assessing the SLMC collection, most notably the work of David Loertscher, are usually based on sampling portions of the collection and extrapolating results to the entire collection.1 Resource alignment and newer technology enable the school library media specialist (SLMS) to do a more thorough and precise assessment of the collection. In most cases, every item in the collection can be evaluated efficiently using the process of resource alignment.
What Is Resource Alignment?
Resource alignment refers to the process of aligning SLMC resources to the curriculum covered by the grade spans within a given school. In North Carolina, teachers are charged with teaching a specific curriculum at each grade level that is outlined in the North Carolina K-12 Standard Course of Study (NCSCS). Although the process and examples presented in this article apply to NCSCS, it can be used with any curriculum. The process takes the adopted curriculum for either the entire state, as is the case in North Carolina, or for a given school system and uses it as the basis for analyzing the usefulness of all instructional resources in the SLMC.
There are six major steps in the resource alignment process (see figure 1 for a complete list of procedures):
1. assessing library media center resources;
2. discarding materials no longer useful or supportive of the curriculum;
3. identifying curriculum gaps in the remaining resources;
4. preparing a prioritized list of needed curriculum resources;
5. writing a three- to five-year resource development plan to address present and projected resource needs; and
6. defining a budgetary process to acquire the needed resources.
Once this process has been completed, the plan should be reassessed year-by-year in order to adjust for curriculum changes and shifting priorities.
Assessing SLMC Collections
An SLMC needs to be assessed in order to determine how closely the resources respond to the curriculum needs for the various grade levels in individual schools or systems. Resources that are old, worn, or lack relevance to curriculum should be removed and replaced with attractive, current materials that are closely aligned with the curriculum. The task should be approached with determination and a commitment to quality rather than quantity.
Most often school library media collections become outdated over a period of years in which the SLMS is unable to purchase new and replacement resources at a rate to match the heavy demands placed on the collection. When budgets remain constant, schools lose ground because of the escalating prices of print resources. The emphasis on technology has also affected many schools' ability to build print collections. While reference resources are more usable in electronic form, it is unlikely that the need for other types of print resources will ever entirely disappear.
There are two possible approaches to collection development. In the shotgun approach, one takes the budget and shoots a little here and there, never fully meeting any one need. With the rifle approach, one specifically targets areas of critical need and aims the majority of funds into those areas. The rifle approach is the only way to make a significant difference in any area.
By applying the weeding criteria (see figure 2) to the various titles in the shelf list, many titles can be eliminated and gaps can be identified. With an automated catalog, the shelflist can be printed out and decisions can be made as to currency and usefulness. The process also can be done, a bit more laboriously, with a paper shelflist. In many cases the copyright date may be used as the sole determinant of the usefulness of a resource.
The physical condition of resources can only be assessed by first-hand examination. At the end of a semester or the school year, when most materials are on the shelf, SLMSs can eyeball each section to assess the physical condition of every item in the collection with the curriculum guide open in their laps.
Determining the number of quality resources that support the curriculum, teachers and SLMSs should assess the collection collaboratively. Using the curriculum as a road map, the tedious, but essential process begins, section by section, title by title, in print and nonprint collections, until an exhaustive search has uncovered every available resource and its usefulness has been determined. Standard selection tools against which to check holdings include: Children's Catalog (H. W. Wilson), Middle and Junior High Catalog (H. W. Wilson), and Senior High Catalog (H. W. Wilson).2 Current materials can be located using book reviews in School Library Journal and the Bulletin of the Center for Children's Books, as well as specialized journals like Reading Teacher and Science Books and Films. There is a list of professional journals in the May/June 2000 issue of Knowledge Quest 3.
Discarding Materials
The task of discarding, or weeding, is never easy for the SLMS; there is always the possibility that the very thing one discards will be needed as soon as it is carted away! Some feel defensive -- that deselection is an implied critique of their selection choices. There is also the tendency to count a resource on the shelf, however old it may be, as if it were useful. Recognizing that limited budgets are insufficient to replace materials, some SLMSs are reluctant to discard in lean times. Further, SLMSs may be more reluctant to discard nonprint media because of their initial cost. However, the same criteria should be applied to both print and nonprint sources. The key consideration is always the accuracy of the information. As counterintuitive as this seems, the need for up-to-date resources can never be demonstrated as long as the shelves appear to be full!
One will not need to discard all of the identified resources during the current school year. A five-year resource development plan can be developed to specifically target the gaps in each SLMC center collection. As resources are added in the identified areas each year, worn and out-of-date materials in that area can be discarded. By systematically following such a plan, the collection can be brought up to date in the most efficient and effective way to make use of precious dollars.
Weeding criteria are not only useful for discarding, but can provide important documentation for administrators, board members, and community groups who might otherwise fail to see the necessity for discarding. As a leader in your school, you should be able to make the case that no information is better than misinformation. When teachers or students find nothing on a subject, they are motivated to look elsewhere for more accurate information. Out-of-date materials can result in the use of erroneous or misleading information by student researchers.
Identifying Gaps in Curriculum Support
Resource alignment involves more than just discarding old, worn, and inappropriate print and nonprint materials. The next step in the resource alignment process is to identify the gaps in both print and nonprint where the curriculum is not supported. A graphic organizer called a Collection Analysis Worksheet (figure 3 - pdf format) can structure the SLMS's evaluation of the collection. At the very least, the SLMS should keep a running list of the gaps left in each section, made visible by weeding. The SLMS should also make notes about sections that are particularly strong.
Preparing a Prioritized List
If the school does not have a Media Advisory Committee (MAC), one should be established. For both political and practical reasons, selecting materials for the SLMC center should be a committee decision based on input from the teaching staff in each school. In North Carolina schools, MAC members are usually appointed by the principal and chaired by the SLMS. There should be representatives from each grade level or subject area, along with parents and students where appropriate.
MAC members should be reminded that the primary function of an SLMC is to support the curriculum. As defined in educational settings, the curriculum includes recreational reading as well as information resources. The role of the committee is to take the data gathered during the assessment process and create collection priorities, either by Dewey categories or topics, beginning with the most urgently needed. This writer's preference is to use Dewey categories because that is the way school library media resources are arranged in schools and organized in selection tools.
Writing a Collection Development Plan
Outdated collections do not get that way overnight; neither can they be fixed overnight. The budget commitment will determine the length of the plan that is developed. Realistically these span from three to five years. The plan documents to administrators involved in budgeting decisions the SLMC's intent to support the school's curriculum. In your role as a school leader you can attach it to grant proposals and use it to make presentations to board members, community and business leaders, and parent/teacher organizations. When the data shows parents that the average age of the science collection in their child's library media center is twenty-five years old, it can be compelling substantiation for increased funding.
Using the prioritized list, a sample collection development plan is created (figure 4 - pdf format). The intent is to complete the funding cycle within five years, so that at any given time the resources are within five years of currency. This is particularly important for sections of the school library media collection such as reference, science and technology, geography, and other topics that are changing rapidly. Occasionally a resource gap will be so great that it may need repeated emphasis in the plan for more than one year.
Once in place, the plan should be reviewed annually to make sure that curriculum priorities continue to be reflected and that resources are being selected and purchased according to the plan. Teachers can direct additional requests for purchases to match the plan. Unless all available funds are directed toward filling the identified gaps, a school with overwhelming resource needs will not be able to bring its media collection up to date. Further, unless the plan is followed to its conclusion, the purpose can easily be defeated, and the collection will be in the same condition that it was in before the resource alignment process.
Developing a Budget
Perhaps the most challenging part of the resource alignment process is funding. Budgeting can be governed by political decisions that are not always made with the best interests of the students in mind. When the projected budget reaches five or six figures, school districts may not be able to commit to such large outlays.
Often funds are allocated on a per pupil basis using the average daily attendance of the school, resulting in inequities. Schools with less than 200 students may suffer; their students need access to the same core group of materials as a school of 2,000. There may be one or more schools within a school district that are unable to keep pace with the rising demand for new materials and equipment. While the cost for nonprint materials is decreasing, large investments in hardware must accompany these purchases. See table 2 for average prices of instructional material, which were based on materials reviewed and recommended by Instructional Resources Evaluation Services between July 2000 and May 2001.
SLMSs must speak up to assure that, when additional funds are allocated, they do not supplant existing funds. Site-based management, mandated in many states such as North Carolina, may also divert funds from the SLMC if SLMSs are not articulate. When budgets remain fixed, no matter how generous they seem to be, SLMCs will lose ground in terms of net dollars if media professionals are not vigilant. Figure 6 shows the average prices for print, nonprint, and technology resources for the 2000-2001 school year. Prices for the 2001-2002 school year will undoubtedly be higher.
The last step is to divide the budgeted funds over the time period of the plan. There are two approaches one can take here based on the amount and method of receiving funds or the allotment practices of the state or local school district. One is to assign actual dollar amounts to each year of the plan; the other is to use percentages. Dollar amounts can be determined by using a current cost analysis chart such as is published each year in InfoTech, a publication of the Instructional Resources Evaluation Services of North Carolina's Department of Public Instruction.3 Similar data are also published in School Library Journal.4
North Carolina is a good example of the percentage approach. The recommended budget can be calculated in the following way: Sixty percent of the state allotted funds x number of students = amount needed. 5 For example, 60 percent of the 2000-2001 per pupil allotment in North Carolina was $44. The recommended amount to be spent on school library media materials in North Carolina is found by calculating 60 percent of $44, or $26. Following this example, a school of 500 students would receive 500 x $26, or $13,000, per year; the five-year total would be $65,000.
Each year of the proposed budget plan may include up to four amounts, depending on the purpose of the plan:
1. the actual dollar amount needed to just replace old, worn resources and fill identified gaps;
2. the amount derived from calculating 60 percent of state instructional funds that is recommended for nonconsumable materials made available to all teachers and students through the SLMC;
3. the amount needed to build an exemplary collection; and
4. the amount that is currently budgeted at the school.
Comparing these four figures will provide the documentation needed to present budget needs to potential funding sources (figure 5 - pdf format). The minimum amount needed to build an exemplary collection can be easily calculated. First determine the number of books per student needed to bring the collection up to exemplary level (twenty to thirty books per student). Then multiply the number of books by $20 (the average price for one book) and the total amount can be determined. For example, a school of 500 students has an average of twelve books per student. The difference between 20 and 12 is 8. Multiply 8 x $20 x 500 students, and the total amount needed is no less than $80,000. Divide the $80,000 over the five years of the proposed budget plan, and the amount needed per year is $16,000. It will take no less than this amount to build an exemplary collection. Sadly, funding for beautiful SLMCs may be forthcoming, while their shelves may be filled with dated resources.
Does the Plan Work?
Resource alignment can be tedious and time consuming, but it provides an opportunity to provide children with the best resources possible for their education. The author has worked with individual schools and entire school systems in the resource alignment process in North Carolina and other states, including both rural and urban schools, affluent schools and less privileged ones. In many instances increased funding has proven unequivocally that the plan works when a commitment is made by all stakeholders. During the 1999-2000 and 2000-2001 school years, the North Carolina State Library awarded a number of collection development grants to individual schools that used the resource alignment process to document their needs.
As textbooks' ability to meet the needs of curriculum wanes, the SLMC's prominence rises. Unless superintendents, school boards, principals, or site-based committees are willing to commit time, effort, and funding to provide the resources, teachers will struggle to deliver the curriculum and meet accountability standards. The greatest travesty is that schools will fail to prepare students for success as lifelong learners.
References
1. David Loertscher, Measures of Excellence for School Library Media Centers (Englewood, Colo.: Libraries Unlimited, 1988).
2. Children's Catalog (New York: H. W. Wilson, 2001), Middle and Junior High Catalog (New York: H. W. Wilson, 2001), and Senior High Catalog (New York: H. W. Wilson, 2001).
3. Terrence E. Young, "Links to Electronic Professional Reading," Knowledge Quest 28, no. 5 (May/June 2000): 38-39. Also available at: FIND LINK.
4. "Average Prices of 2000-2001 Instructional Media," InfoTech (May 2001): 38. Also available at <www.evalutech.sreb.org>.
5. Julie Cummins, "Dead Trees and Wooden Nickels," School Library Journal 47, no.3 (Mar. 2001): 11.
6. North Carolina Department of Public Instruction, IMPACT: Guidelines for School Library Media and Instructional Technology Programs (Raleigh, N.C.: Dept. of Public Instruction, 2000.)
Karen Lowe is an Education Consultant at the Northwest Regional Educational Service Alliance in Wilkesboro, North Carolina, and author of Resource Alignment: Providing Curriculum Support in the School Library Media Center.
|
