Kelli Carr 991628323

CIMT 509 Summer I 2011

Proficiency Two Option #1

Kelli Carr CIMT 509/Summer I 2011 Proficiency #2-Option # 1

Project Statement: Notesome links on the page my be dead or temporarily not functioninghopefully all of you can accept this as a reality of the internet environment rather than an oversight on my part. If you run into this, select another option. Conduct a google search to locate sample school library selection policiesI would suggest using the search string sample school library selection policies (include the quotes). This option yields several pages of hits, many of which will serve you well for this project option. However, you may have to peruse through several top level pages of results to find what is required--- read on. Select any two (2) collection development policies for a compare and contrast treatment. Thoroughly review both policies with a particular eye toward breadth, depth, completeness (based on the text), and tone. In essay style, compare and contrast the two policies with regard to relative strengths and weaknesses from the perspective of a school library media specialist. Be sure to include the web address for both policies within the text of your essay. So long as you maintain a parallel organization of your content discussion, you may discuss each policy in separate sections. However, the closing section of your essay should draw attention to similarities and differences between the two. Ultimately, you must decide which is the better policy in terms of what such policies are intended to do. Your essay should end with a synthesis of this experience in terms of what discoveries and connections you make (someone once called them AHAs) with regard to the reading and your personal experience (if any) thus far. How much do I want? I cant imagine that this project can be done in fewer than five (5) content pages, i.e. not counting the cover sheet and restatement of the project. Your total paper (not including title page and restatement of the project) may NOT exceed eight (8) pages!!!!

Kelli Carr CIMT 509/Summer I 2011 Proficiency #2-Option # 1

For this essay, I reviewed two sample school library selection policies looking at them for breadth, depth, and completeness based on the elements of a selection policy in The Collection Program in Schools by Kay Bishop. The process presents an opportunity to explain the media centers role in the educational process, to emphasize the importance of a commitment to intellectual freedom, and to discuss the concept f providing access to information. (Bishop, 2007) When I first looked at this project option, I thought that it would be beneficial to start in my own county to see what my schools policy looked like in comparison to others in my district. After starting on my own web site and looking at three other schools sites, there were no policies to be found. I am new to this position, so I am hoping to find that our policies are to be kept in the libraries of our schools where they are easily accessible. I know that our district has a selection policy as I have a copy of it in a binder that I have started. I continued to search for sample selection policies and found one from Hearn Elementary School in Kentucky http://www.kysma.org/Sample_Policies.htm . The other school I chose was a school called Falk Laboratory School at the University of Pittsburgh http://tc.education.pitt.edu/library/AboutLibrary-2009/SelectionPolicy.htm. In reviewing both policies and comparing them with Bishops text, I see that they state a philosophy that provides a belief statement on how they will facilitate learning in their respective schools environment. The philosophy statement written by Linda Herward, the LIS at Falk Lab School, is phrased in a way that suggests that they are an inquiry school that promotes higher level thinking skills. She has written several
3

Kelli Carr CIMT 509/Summer I 2011 Proficiency #2-Option # 1

philosophical statements in the last several years, looking at her site, and they are written to be understood by all patrons. Although her vocabulary is admirable, I am not convinced that her meaning would be conveyed to the general public or even her focused group of patrons. The goals, selection objectives, that immediately follow the philosophy statement are well thought-out and written in a format that is easily understood; these goals are set in accordance to the American Association of School Librarians. The policy then goes on to provide statements for who is responsible for selecting materials, by what criteria they are selected, and procedures for selecting materials. What I found interesting her was that the director of the school delegated responsibility for selecting materials to the media specialist where she in turn put together an acquisition group to include a primary, elementary, and middle school teacher. So what is interesting is that there are no parents or students in on the committee, but in the selection criteria you will find that they look for materials that interest their students or that are popular. Perhaps they base these things on circulation of the materials. This group meets periodically, but periodically is not defined in the policy perhaps so as not to bind them to a meeting schedule. Procedures for selecting materials are not included in the selection policy, but they are addressed and referenced in an appendix to the document. Section V of the policy address Selection Criteria. This section is divided to set criteria for nonfiction and fiction materials respectively. I like this part of the policy because it recognizes that although fictional materials will have some of the same
4

Kelli Carr CIMT 509/Summer I 2011 Proficiency #2-Option # 1

qualities as nonfiction materials, there are some additional criteria to take into consideration when evaluating fictional materials. Here again, as in the Selection Objectives, the criteria for selection materials is very well thought-out. A patron can clearly see why materials are or are not selected for the collection. The policy also has a section that explains the criteria for weeding materials as its own separate entity. It appears that they are no arguable gray areas when it comes to what is selected or weeded. In regards to challenging material, Herward gives an overview of what to do in terms of filing a complaint, and then again, thoroughly explains what will happen in the process. Having this in the policy, and available for patrons is a helpful tool, especially if the LIS is not immediately available. As mentioned before, both policies have a philosophy statement that presents their values and beliefs. The obvious difference is that the one written by Becky Nelson, the LIS at Hearn Elementary School, is written as statement that is easily understood by her patrons and the general public. I do, however, like the format of Herwards better. Nelson has written most of this policy in paragraph form, and although the language is easy to understand, the format makes it a bit more difficult to follow than Herwards. The philosophy statement of Hearns Elementary School simply states that the media center will provide the knowledge, tools, and technology for personal interest and educational needs of the students; this is contrast to the term materials. The Selection Objectives for this policy has three basic principles that drive the direction and need for a policy. In the Falk Lab policy, there were seven and Herward
5

Kelli Carr CIMT 509/Summer I 2011 Proficiency #2-Option # 1

cited reference to the American Association of School Librarians. It is my opinion that because there are some similarities in the objectives, credit should be given. This is especially helpful if and when the policy needs to be amended. Criteria for selecting materials in this policy are well-written and include two parts: general and specific standards. In regards to both policies, they have given great consideration in what to include in their collections respectively. It appears that Hearns Elementarys selection criteria may be a bit more comprehensive. Two areas where the policies differ quite a bit are the processes of gifting, weeding, selection procedures, and procedures for challenging materials. In the Hearns Elementary policy, Nelson, in paragraph, form has grouped gifting, weeding, and selection procedures and has devoted quite a bit of the remainder of the policy to procedures for challenging books. I like how in the Falk Lab policy the selection procedures are in a different appendix, but in the Hearns policy, it doesnt take away any emphasis. They just dont utilize as many review sources as Falk Lab School. Gifts and weeding are briefly mentioned which may require verbal explanation when the need arises to evaluate the collection. In terms of challenging materials, the Hearns Elementary School policy explicitly states the terms of challenging material. The procedures are very well-written so that there is no doubt that anyone could follow the procedures should the LIS not be available at the time of the complaint due to long-term leave. With the Falk Lab policy, there may be some questions about how the process continues passed the LIS;

Kelli Carr CIMT 509/Summer I 2011 Proficiency #2-Option # 1

something I didnt notice until I started comparing the two policies. The form for challenging material is posted and is very lengthy. In terms of what policies are supposed to do in regard to being committed to the educational processes and providing opportunities for intellectual freedom and access to information, I think I would say that Falk Laboratory School has the better policy. Their in-depth criteria for selection objectives, selection criteria, and the resources they use for building their collection are better as far as I could see. There are qualities of each of them that could be used to make a policy that would render a solid school library selection policy. The task of writing a policy is one that takes a huge time commitment, one that requires school founded on solid core values and beliefs, and a commitment to giving the students a well-rounded collection that puts their learning as the most important criteria. I think that both of these schools had those terms in mind.

Resources Bishop, Kay. The Collection Program in Schools, 4th edition. Libraries Unlimited, 2007. Herward, Linda. Falk Laboratory School. (2010). Retrieved June 16, 2011 from http://tc.education.pitt.edu/library/AboutLibrary-2009/SelectionPolicy.htm Nelson, Becky. Kentucky School Media Association. (2002) Retrieved June 16, 2011 from http://www.kysma.org/Sample_Policies.htm

Kelli Carr CIMT 509/Summer I 2011 Proficiency #2-Option # 1

PROJECT SUBMISSION CHECKLIST

NOTE: The most frequently occurring problem with projects has to do with not following instructions regarding submission. These errors, particularly a few of them, are time consuming for you and for me to troubleshoot. As a result, the following checklist has been developed in an effort to eliminate the problem. Failure to include this checklist with each submitted project or failure to adhere to any submission rule will be costly in my grading of your worka deduction of 10 pts. Each item on the checklist is referenced in the course syllabus, so you might want to check there for further clarification. INSTRUCTIONS: Include this checklist as the last page of all submitted project work PLACE AN X OR A CHECK TO THE LEFT OF THE BOX FOR EACH ITEM X Named saved file appropriately, e.g. John Smith would name his word processing file for proficiency #1 as smith509prof1.doc. X Included cover sheet with prescribed information X Restated ENTIRED project statement verbatim following the cover sheet X If applicable, adhered to page length specifications X Included a header or footer with your last name and course number on each page of the project X Used Times Roman or Arial font only X Unless instructed otherwise, double-spaced body text X Incorporated pictures and/or illustrations as appropriate Comments or explanations that you need to make (optional)