Jane Tesoro

LIS 615: Wertheimer

February 26, 2004

COLLECTION DEVELOPMENT POLICY CRITIQUE

My comparison of two public school districts’ collection policies began with the expectation of unique variations from the elements presented in our text. I had already reviewed our own Department of Education’s Materials Selection Policy for School Libraries which covered seven pages and decided instead to seek out districts on opposite sides of the United States: the Bellingham Public Schools in Washington state and the Baltimore County Public Schools in Maryland. My objectives for critiquing both policies were as follows:

• identify elements of a collection development policy as discussed in the text (Evans 2000, 75-86)
• compare and contrast public school perspectives by examining policy
• evaluate the overall impact of a school’s policy to that educational environment.

I started by creating a chart (table 1) with each school district’s policy separated by a center column with the elements that Evans listed in our text. Bellingham’s policy was fifty-eight pages while Baltimore’s a mere fourteen. As I perused both documents, I tried to locate relevant items that I thought would fit into each box. This required several readings and rearranging of details using exact wording or paraphrasing to categorize areas as I understood them. Since these policies relate to an entire school district rather than a particular school, I was unable to get a precise description of each campus’ demographics.

A school district relies on its selected curriculum to meet the needs of students and faculty including parents and community as stakeholders. Not surprisingly, support for the curriculum and established learner outcomes was mentioned in both school policies. Baltimore’s policy was simply stated while Bellingham’s lengthy document was well-organized but included the Board’s administrative procedures which I construed to be the absolute authority in determining instructional and non-instructional materials. Although each school library seemed free to select materials, it always included the recommendations of administrators and other teachers. Baltimore’s policy appeared to grant more leeway to the library media specialist, even when suggesting consideration of teacher recommendations.

An interesting difference was the handling of discards. Baltimore forbade it and directed all materials be collected and sent for recycling; Bellingham had a more lenient policy of allowing some materials to be loaned to classrooms with the understanding that the items were still the property of the district. Considering many teachers often lack enough funds for their classrooms, I think they would appreciate Bellingham’s policy of sharing resources.

Bellingham has many forms to complete aimed at keeping accurate inventory of items with explicit instructions for identifying on computer what items were marked for discard and then eliminated from the system. An annual report of collection maintenance in checklist form is an efficient way to perform routine tasks. A weeding schedule for each school level (elementary, middle and high school) already had predetermined years listed on its Multi-Year Weeding Schedule.

Both schools policies listed selection sources the library media specialist could use for print and non-print materials. Bellingham’s electronic resources are handled separately under their technological library services, and I did not pursue looking at those documents since library media collection management document alone was so prolific.

The handling of complaints was similar to the extent that a written form needed to be completed by the person requesting reconsideration of materials. Suggestions for dealing with such a complainant were offered, which could assist greatly provided the media specialist was able to recall these tips under duress.

Evans places great emphasis on the conspectus model (Evans 2000, 77), but I did not find any indication to that nature in either public school district’s policies. School libraries are rather small and limited compared to public and academic libraries, so this element was not present in my opinion.

Considering the different aspects of both school districts’ policies, I sensed the impact of that district’s influence on a particular school based on the way policies were stated or presented. Bellingham’s lengthy policy was quite exacting and definitely lived up to the procedural guidelines framework as described. Nothing is left to chance. Baltimore’s leaner policy still accomplished its goal of selection criteria without overbearing tones. Perhaps I am too sensitive to the dictates of authority, and Bellingham may well thrive efficiently under the auspices of the district Board. But in conclusion, I preferred the simpler format of the Baltimore school district’s policy for saying what it needed with a minimum of clout.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Baltimore County Public Schools.  Selection Criteria for School Library Media Center Collections. Internet, http://www.bcps.org/offices/lis/office/admin/selection.html, accessed 21 February 2004.

Bellingham Public Schools. 2004. Managing Our Library Collections for Information Power. Internet, http://www.bham.wednet.edu/departments/libmedtech/libmedtech.htm, accessed 20 February 2004.

Evans, G. Edward. Developing Library and Information Center Collections, 4th edition. Englewood, CO: Libraries Unlimited, 2000.

Table 1

ELEMENTS OF A COLLECTION DEVELOPMENT POLICY