School Library Media Survey Report

Prepared for theRegents Commission on Library Services

byGeorge D’Elia

Professor and DirectorCenter for Applied Research in Library and Information Science

University at Buffalo, State University of New YorkNancy Zimmerman

Associate Professor, University of South CarolinaAPRIL 2000

Introduction

In 1988, Information Power: Guidelines for School Library Media Programs, published by the American Association of School Librarians (AASL) and the Association for Educational Communications and Technology (AECT), defined the multiple roles of the school library media specialist (SLMS) and emphasized the impact an effective school library media (SLM) program could have on student achievement. 1998 saw the release of Information Power: Building Partnerships for Learning which contained the Information Literacy Standards for Student Learning and further defined the changing roles of the SLMS and stressed the importance of information literacy in student achievement.[1] In 1993, the Colorado State Department of Education under the direction of Keith Lance conducted a study to examine the impact of school library media centers (SLMCS) on student academic achievement using the tenets of Information Power with positive results.

Since 1993, the Colorado Study has been adapted and replicated in several states with like findings, most notably in Alaska, Colorado, and Pennsylvania. The National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) has also released data that support these findings, as has the analysis of over 600 research studies in the field of school library media by Dr. Ken Haycock. An extensive review of the literature done in 1999 for the Pennsylvania study on the impact of school library media resources and services on student achievement also affirms these findings. These studies provide clear and compelling testimony on several points:

The presence of a professionally trained, certified school library media specialist (SLMS) and a large and diverse collection lead to higher student test scores.

The more time SLMSs and teachers spend working together and collaborating on instruction, the higher scores students make on tests.

Schools with certified SLMSs are more likely to be integrating information literacy standards with content standards, and such schools are almost three times as likely to have SLMSs participating in the development of such standards.

Minimal gains in information literacy and study skills can be achieved through instruction by either the classroom teacher or the SLMS. Effective instruction depends on collaborative planning and teaching of both teacher and SLMS; stated another way, scheduled library classes taught solely by the SLMS are not as effective as integrated,

collaboratively planned and taught programs. Flexibly scheduled SLMCs provide greater academic benefits.

Schools in states with above average reading scores have schools where students have greater access to certified SLMSs, visit SLMCs more frequently, and borrow more books and other materials.

These relationships exist regardless of the demographic and economic makeup of the school and its community (in other words, this relationship exists when at-risk factors such as family economic level, level of adult educational attainment, and school size are controlled for statistically).[2]

The Commission contracted with Drs. George D’Elia and Nancy Zimmerman of the Center for Applied Research in Library and Information Studies (CARLIS) at the University at Buffalo, State University of New York to survey School Library Media Specialists and provide data to inform the Commission. The data from this survey was analyzed with test data and with data determining school similarity from the New York State Education Department (NYSED) to examine the impact of library media centers on student achievement. This submission is a report on the findings of this study.

The New York State Education Department, in order to compare schools facing like challenges, arranges schools into "similar school" groupings based on three factors:

grade range of students served by the school; school district capabilities; and needs of the school student population.

Based on these factors each school is placed into one of six Need/Resource Capacity or N/CR Groups. These six N/CR Groups are:

1. New York City, 2. Large Cities, 3. High N/RC Urban or Suburban, 4. High N/RC Rural, 5. Average N/RC, and 6. Low N/RC.

The amalgam of demographic data for the school districts used to establish the N/CR groupings combines the best indicators of educational need -- school district student poverty and English Language proficiency -- with financial resources of the school district, district enrollment, and district land area. Within the need-to-resource capacity index groups, there is a marked variability between schools in the demographics of their students. The New York State Education Department attempted to develop groupings that would allow reasonable comparison based on the challenges faced by particular schools, yet find a balance between having too many groups with too few schools in each, and too few groups where schools are less fairly compared.

Methodology

The objectives of this study are as follows:

1. to collect descriptive data about SLM programs in schools in New York State; 2. to analyze whether the data collected by the SLM survey included factors which impact

on student achievement as determined by 4th and 8th grade English/Language Arts and Math test scores; and

3. to find out if the data collected by the SLM survey, when analyzed with the N/CR data provided by the New York State Education Department, included factors which impact on student achievement as determined by 4th and 8th grade English/Language Arts and Math test scores.

N/CR groupings include some of the school and community characteristics utilized in the other studies cited on the impact of SLM on student achievement, all the variables studied are not included. Raw data on the discrete elements that determine the N/CR were not available, so analyses was confined to those variables included in the N/CR formula and the N/CR Index grouping of those elements. Also, a breakdown of the New York City schools into smaller N/CR groupings was not available, so all New York City schools were analyzed together as one N/CR Index grouping. Acknowledging the limitations of using the N/CR as a way of comparing similar schools and controlling for socioeconomic factors, the researchers concluded these data were the best available given the constraints of time and cost.

In the Fall of 1999, a questionnaire was developed to collect data unavailable from other sources and:

1. to identify the specific certification title or non-certification of the person primarily responsible for the day-to-day operations of each school's SLMC;

2. to identify how long the person responsible for the day-to day operations of each school's SLMC had been in that position;

3. to ascertain the level of all staffing in each school's SLMC; 4. to examine the scheduling of each school's SLMC; 5. to ascertain if the SLMC provided contractual release and/or planning time for classroom

teachers; and 6. to examine the amount of time SLMSs spend in their roles of teachers, information

specialists, and instructional partners with teachers.

In December 1999, the questionnaires were mailed, using labels supplied by the NYSED, to 3,400 of the 4,129 public schools with libraries in New York State. The questionnaires were only mailed to schools that had students in grades 4 and 8 who took the new English/Language Arts and Math tests required by the New York State Education Department during the 1998-1999 school year. Data was not collected from schools that did not have students in grades 4 or 8 since there would not be corresponding test score data. The person responsible for the day-to-day operations of the SLMC was asked to complete the questionnaire. Respondents were directed to return questionnaires by mail to Drs. Zimmerman and D'Elia. The closing date for survey return was set for January 14, 2000, but was extended until February 15, 2000 to include all responses.Survey responses were recorded and coded using SPSS, the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences. Analysis of variance tests were run to examine survey results with test scores for 4th and 8th grade English/Language Arts and Math tests, as obtained from the New York State Education Department, for all responding schools. Then survey responses were run with test scores for each N/CR Index groupings. Tests resulting in a F<.05 are considered statistically

significant for this study. Finally, using SPSS, multiple tests of correlation were run for the entire state and for each N/CR grouping. A correlation serves the purpose of assessing the strength of the relationship between two variables and a correlation resulting in P=.2 or higher is considered significant.

Questionnaire Data/Demographics

Response Rate

By the closing date of February 15, 2000, 2,032 of the 3,400 surveys were returned for an overall response rate of 59.7 per cent. The response rate for New York City schools was 24.6 per cent and the response rate for schools outside of New York City was 75.4 per cent.

Certification

Previous studies found that there is a link between the presence of a certified SLMS and higher student academic achievement so the specific certification status of SLMC personnel was sought. Of the respondents, 94.8 per cent report holding a New York State (NYS) teacher certification, but of those certified only 76.7 per cent hold New York State teacher certification in school library media (SLM). This means that 18.1 per cent of the respondents responsible for the operation and instruction of students in the SLMC do not have NYS certification in the SLM field and 5.2 per cent are staffed by persons holding no teaching certification at all, so 23.3 per cent, nearly 1/4 of the responding schools, have SLMCs not staffed by a certified school library media specialists.

For NYC schools, 7.3 per cent of the respondents hold no teacher certification and 66.9 per cent hold teacher certification, but not in SLM. Only 25.8 per cent of the respondents hold NYS certification as a SLMS. For schools outside of New York City, however, 88.5 per cent hold NYS certification as a SLMS, only 4.8 per cent hold no certification, and 6.7 per cent hold certification as teachers but not in SLM.

Length of Employment Common wisdom would suggest that it takes time to develop an effective SLM program. To that end, length of employment in present position was explored. Responding to length of employment in present position, 39.7 per cent of the respondents report being employed five years or less; 20.3 per cent from six to ten years; 15.1 per cent from eleven to fifteen years; 7.7 per cent from sixteen to twenty years; 5.1 per cent from twenty-one to twenty-five years; 6.4 per cent from twenty-six to thirty years; and 2.5 percent reporting being employed more than thirty years. Years of employment reported ranged from less than one year to forty-one years in present position.

Staffing

Since success of any SLM program in promoting academic achievement depends fundamentally on the presence of adequate staffing, staffing levels of SLMCs were examined. Questions were

asked to determine the staffing level of certified personnel assigned to the SLMC to the nearest total full time equivalent. Of all responding, 4.7 per cent reported having no certified (with either teacher or SLM certification) staff in the SLMC; 83.3 per cent reported certified staffing level to be I FTE; 3 per cent reported certified staffing level to be 1.5 FTE; and 3.9 per cent reported certified staffing level to be 2 FTE.

Questions were asked to determine the staffing level of classified or other paraprofessional staff. Of all respondents, 29.5 per cent reported having no classified staff in the SLMC; 7.3 percent reported classified staffing level at .5 FTE; 43.8 per cent reported classified staffing level at I FTE; 2.2 per cent reported classified staffing level at 1.5 FTE; 7.2 per cent reported classified staffing level at 2 FTE; and 1.9 percent reported classified staffing level at 3 FTE.

Scheduling of the School Library Media Center (SLMC)

Despite research evidence that flexible scheduling, or access to the SLMC at point of instructional need, provides greater academic benefits, only 28.2 per cent of the respondents report scheduling that is completely flexible. A completely fixed schedule, where students come to the SLMC only at scheduled times, is reported by 45.9 per cent of the respondents and 25.9 per cent report a mix of fixed and flexible scheduling. That means students in 71.8 per cent of the responding schools do not have access to the SLMC at the point of instructional need but only during prescheduled times. Fifty per cent of those responding report that scheduling of the SLMC is used to provide contractual planning time for classroom teachers despite what is known about academic effectiveness.

Time Spent in Roles

Much of the research taking place after the publication of Information Power: Guidelines for School Library Media Programs in 1988 focuses on the multiple roles of the SLMS, especially the instructional role. Studies found that students whose SLMSs played an instructional role either by identifying materials to be used with teacher-planned instructional units or by collaborating with teachers in planning and delivering instruction, tended to achieve higher test scores. Noting the bias that might affect the self-reporting of time spent on various roles and activities, researchers sought to obtain this information by using descriptive terms from two different sources to describe the roles and activities of SLMS. Respondents were first asked to estimate the percentage of time spent during an average workweek in the four roles defined by Information Power: Building Partnerships for Learning: Role I. Teacher; Role 2. Instructional Partner; Role 3. Information Specialist; and Role 4. Program Administrator.

The mean time as reported by respondents spent on Role I. Teacher was 53.8 per cent; on Role 2. Instructional Partner was 12.2 per cent; on Role 3. Information Specialist was 18.2 per cent; and on Role 4. Program Administrator was 15.5 per cent.

In order to further explore this question and to minimize the problems of self- reporting, respondents were asked to estimate the percentage of time spent on three separate groups of activities in a typical work week, as described in Taxonomies of the School Library Media Program by David Loertscher: Activities Group A: Development, Maintenance and

Management of the Collection and Facility; Activities Group B: Direct Services to Teachers and Students; and Activities Group C: Collaborative Program Planning and Teaching.

The mean time reported spent on Activities Group A was 34.7 per cent; on Activities Group B was 50.8 per cent; and on Activities Group C was 14.1 per cent. Responses to both questions reveal that the percentage of time devoted to the instructional partner role and collaborative planning activities (the ones previous studies indicate have the most effect on student achievement) were those with the lowest reported percentage of time spent.

Data Analyses

Certification and Mean Test Scores

The first data analyses conducted was to run a One-way Analysis of Variance of the Mean test scores for each of the four tests, 4th grade English/Language Arts, 4th grade Math, 8th grade English/Language Arts and 8th grade Math, by the certification status of personnel charged with the day-to-day operation of the SLMC in each school. On all four tests statewide there was a statistically significant difference ( F=.00) in test scores of those students in schools with a certified SLMS. Students in schools with certified SLMSs had statistically significant higher test scores than those students in schools with no certified personnel in the SLMC or those with teachers not certified in SLM. There is a statistically significant difference when the SLMS is certified only as a SLMS and when the SLMS held multiple certifications. The important factor was the presence of a certified SLMS. Small sample sizes made analysis of this data for New York City alone unreliable.

[1] AASL and AECT. Information Power: Guidelines for School Library Media Programs. Chicago: ALA, 1988. AASL and AECT. Information Power: Building Partnerships for Learning, Chicago: ALA, 1998.

[2] Information on the Colorado, Alaska, and Pennsylvania studies and the literature review of the Pennsylvania study is available at http://www.lrs.org

Data from NCES is available at http://www.nces.ed.gov

Dr. Haycock’s analyses is published in: Haycock, Ken. What Works: Research About Teaching and Learning Through the School's Library Resource Center. Seattle: Rockland Press, 1992.