Global Action on School Library Guidelines 9783110362664, 9783110362435

Table of contents :
Contents
About IFLA
Foreword. Messages from the Sponsoring Organizations
Preface
Part 1 Developing International School Library Guidelines
1 International School Library Guidelines. A Brief History
2 Development of the New International School Library Guidelines
Part 2 Developing and Using National and Regional Guidelines
3 Developing National Standards for School Libraries in Canada
4 Guidelines and Standards for School Libraries in Catalonia, Spain
5 Standards for School Libraries in Poland. Are They Working?
6 Norway’s School Library Development and School Reform 2001–2014. Guidelines by Grants and Lifts
Part 3 Using Guidelines to Change School Library Practice
7 The Learning Commons. From Planning to Practice in a School System in South Carolina, USA
8 School Library Learning Standards in Portugal. Leading the Way
Part 4 Using Guidelines for School Library Advocacy and Development
9 School Libraries for All. From Concept to Reality in Sweden
10 Teacher Librarians and the Australian Professional Standards for Teachers
11 Applying an Ecological Model and Standards for Library Development to Build Literacy in Rural Ethiopian Communities
Part 5 Developing Guidelines for the Teaching Role of the School Librarian
12 Developing a Curriculum in Information and Documentation for Secondary Schools in France
13 Developing a K-6 Note Taking Continuum in a School in Western Australia
Part 6 Guidelines for the Initial Preparation of School Librarians
14 Guiding the Preparation of School Librarians in the United States, 1984–2014
15 Preparing Next-generation School Librarians. School Library Education in Hawai?i
16 The Symbiotic Relationship between Standards and Programmes in School Library Education California’s Experience
Afterword
Appendix
IFLA/UNESCO School Library Manifesto (1999)
Contributors
Index

Citation preview

IFLA Publications

Edited by Michael Heaney International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions Fédération Internationale des Associations de Bibliothécaires et des Bibliothèques Internationaler Verband der bibliothekarischen Vereine und Institutionen Международная Федерация Библиотечных Ассоциаций и Учреждений Federación Internacional de Asociaciones de Bibliotecarios y Bibliotecas

Volume 167

Global Action on School Library Guidelines Edited on behalf of IFLA by Barbara A. Schultz-Jones and Dianne Oberg

DE GRUYTER SAUR

ISBN 978-3-11-036243-5 e-ISBN (PDF) 978-3-11-036266-4 e-ISBN (EPUB) 978-3-11-039585-3 ISSN 0344-6891 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data A CIP catalog record for this book has been applied for at the Library of Congress. Bibliografische Information der Deutschen Nationalbibliothek The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data is available on the internet at http://dnb.dnb.de. © 2015 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston Cover Image: Cover image: Pupils enjoying reading through the Lubuto Library Project, Zambia; Students campaigning for “1 school, 1 library, 1 librarian”, South Africa (source: Equal Education NGO, 2010); Reading Hour in Alverca. Primary School Quinta da Vala, Portugal; Surfing&Searching at “Gymnasia Skole n. 56” in Petersburg, Russia (photo by Lui.Mar, 2010); Logos (top right): IASL SLRC, IASL; GiggleIT; ISLM. (Image idea by Lui.Mar. Image mash-up by Alessio Oriani, 2011). Typesetting: Dr Rainer Ostermann, München Printing and binding: CPI books GmbH, Leck ♾ Printed on acid-free paper Printed in Germany www.degruyter.com

Contents Contents About IFLA 

 IX

Barbara A. Schultz-Jones and Diljit Singh Foreword Messages from the Sponsoring Organizations

 XI

Barbara A. Schultz-Jones and Dianne Oberg Preface  XIII

Part 1 Developing International School Library Guidelines 1

Dianne Oberg International School Library Guidelines A Brief History  3

Barbara A. Schultz-Jones 2 Development of the New International School Library Guidelines

 11

Part 2 Developing and Using National and Regional Guidelines 3

Carol Koechlin and Judith Sykes Developing National Standards for School Libraries in Canada

4

Mònica Baró, Teresa Mañà and Àlex Cosials Guidelines and Standards for School Libraries in Catalonia, Spain

5

 25

Bogumiła Staniów Standards for School Libraries in Poland Are They Working?  50

Johan Koren 6 Norway’s School Library Development and School Reform 2001–2014 Guidelines by Grants and Lifts  63

 41

VI 

 Contents

Part 3 Using Guidelines to Change School Part 3:Library Practice 7

Jessica Kohout and Karen W. Gavigan The Learning Commons From Planning to Practice in a School System in South Carolina, USA

 83

Elsa Conde, Isabel Mendinhos and Paula Correia 8 School Library Learning Standards in Portugal Leading the Way  93

Part 4 Using Guidelines for School Library Advocacy and Part 4:Development Karin Ahlstedt, Inga Andersson, Jenny Lindmark, Sofia Hög and Bo Westas 9 School Libraries for All From Concept to Reality in Sweden  111 Margo Pickworth and Jenny Uther 10 Teacher Librarians and the Australian Professional Standards for Teachers  122 Marlene Asselin, Ray Doiron and Alemu Abebe 11 Applying an Ecological Model and Standards for Library Development to Build Literacy in Rural Ethiopian Communities  133

Part 5 Developing Guidelines for the Teaching Role of the Part 5:School Librarian Florian Reynaud, Martine Ernoult, Danielle Martinod, Magali Bon and Valérie Glass 12 Developing a Curriculum in Information and Documentation for Secondary Schools in France  155 Alison Mackenzie and Marilyn Hand 13 Developing a K-6 Note Taking Continuum in a School in Western Australia  166



Contents 

Part 6 Guidelines for the Initial Preparation of School Part 6 Librarians Gail K. Dickinson and Audrey P. Church 14 Guiding the Preparation of School Librarians in the United States, 1984–2014  179 Rae-Anne Montague 15 Preparing Next-generation School Librarians School Library Education in Hawaiʻi  190 Lesley S. J. Farmer 16 The Symbiotic Relationship between Standards and Programmes in School Library Education California’s Experience  209 Afterword

 220

Appendix IFLA/UNESCO School Library Manifesto (1999) Contributors Index

 231

Foreword

 225

 221

 VII

Foreword

About IFLA www.ifla.org IFLA (The International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions) is the leading international body representing the interests of library and information services and their users. It is the global voice of the library and information profession. IFLA provides information specialists throughout the world with a forum for exchanging ideas and promoting international cooperation, research, and development in all fields of library activity and information service. IFLA is one of the means through which libraries, information centres, and information professionals worldwide can formulate their goals, exert their influence as a group, protect their interests, and find solutions to global problems. IFLA’s aims, objectives, and professional programme can only be fulfilled with the co-operation and active involvement of its members and affiliates. Currently, approximately 1,600 associations, institutions and individuals, from widely divergent cultural backgrounds, are working together to further the goals of the Federation and to promote librarianship on a global level. Through its formal membership, IFLA directly or indirectly represents some 500,000 library and information professionals worldwide. IFLA pursues its aims through a variety of channels, including the publication of a major journal, as well as guidelines, reports and monographs on a wide range of topics. IFLA organizes workshops and seminars around the world to enhance professional practice and increase awareness of the growing importance of libraries in the digital age. All this is done in collaboration with a number of other non-governmental organizations, funding bodies and international agencies such as UNESCO and WIPO. IFLANET, the Federation’s website, is a prime source of information about IFLA, its policies and activities: www.ifla.org. Library and information professionals gather annually at the IFLA World Library and Information Congress, held in August each year in cities around the world. IFLA was founded in Edinburgh, Scotland, in 1927 at an international conference of national library directors. IFLA was registered in the Netherlands in 1971. The Koninklijke Bibliotheek (Royal Library), the national library of the Netherlands, in The Hague, generously provides the facilities for our headquarters. Regional offices are located in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil; Pretoria, South Africa; and Singapore.

Foreword Messages from the Sponsoring Organizations As Chair of the IFLA School Libraries Section, I applaud the results of this recent collaboration between our section and the International Association of School Librarianship. We have established a solid foundation of collaboration, dating back to 2006, and this is the second IFLA publication resulting from this collaboration. The timing of this publication coincides with the culmination of our joint efforts to revise the IFLA/UNESCO School Library Guidelines. The 2015 edition of the Guidelines is the result of a wide international effort, and the topics presented in this volume demonstrate the efforts worldwide to develop and implement guidelines and standards, towards the realization of the role of school libraries in supporting and advancing student learning. Each chapter within this book illustrates the determination and fortitude of school librarians and educators, working to fulfil our mission, expressed in the IFLA/UNESCO Manifesto, of teaching and learning for all. Their stories emphasise the value of working collaboratively and collectively to inspire hope and offer opportunities for future action.

IFLA – School Libraries Section 11 Barbara A. Schultz-Jones Chair, IFLA School Libraries Section

School libraries are an important component in the education process. The development of school libraries is facilitated by a number of factors, one of them being the existence of standards and guidelines. The IFLA/UNESCO School Library Manifesto has long served to define the mission and goals of the school library, its services, and its staff. A follow-up publication, the IFLA/UNESCO School Library Guidelines, was produced to help schools and school librarians to implement the principles expressed in the manifesto. This document has recently been collabo-

XII 

 Foreword

ratively reviewed and revised by the International Association of School Librarianship (IASL) and IFLA’s Section on School Libraries (SSL). To further assist the development of school libraries, IFLA School Libraries Section and IASL have again collaborated to produce this book, Global Action on School Library Guidelines. The chapters in the book represent a sample of experiences and understandings on the development and usage of standards. They cover various topics ranging from the history and development of standards, to their use to change school library practice, advocacy and development, the initial preparation of school librarians, and the redefinition of their teaching role. Edited by Barbara Schultz-Jones and Dianne Oberg, two very dedicated members of IFLA School Libraries and IASL, the book contains chapters on experiences from ten different countries. The chapters are written by experienced authors who share their knowledge on the development or implementation of standards in their respective countries or regions. These can serve to generate many new ideas for action among the wider international community. As we strive to create a better future for our children, this book is a welcome addition to the knowledge base of school librarianship.

International Association of School Librarianship Diljit Singh President International Association of School Librarianship

Foreword

Preface Preface The genesis of this book emerged from a meeting of the IFLA School Libraries Standing Committee where two topics were being discussed: the need to develop implementation strategies to disseminate and promote the forthcoming revision of the IFLA/UNESCO School Library Guidelines and the invitation from Editor Michael Heaney to submit a book proposal on a school library related topic to the IFLA publisher, DeGruyter Saur. The Section had previously been successful in developing a book, Global Perspectives on School Libraries: Projects and Practices, co-edited by Luisa Marquardt (Italy) and Dianne Oberg (Canada) and published in 2011. The development of the new book, Global Action on School Library Guidelines, began with a Call for Chapter Proposals. The proposals were vetted by members of the IFLA School Libraries Standing Committee and of the Executive Committee of IASL. Sixteen proposals were accepted, and these authors were invited to write full chapters based on their proposals. The editors also decided that the book should include two chapters related to the development of the IFLA/ UNESCO School Library Manifesto (1999) and the development and revision of the IFLA/UNESCO School Library Guidelines (2002) in order to provide an international context for the work on guidelines being done at national and local levels. These two chapters constitute Part 1 of the book, Developing International School Library Guidelines. Readers will note that the revised Guidelines document is titled the IFLA School Library Guidelines Draft, pending formal endorsement of the document by UNESCO. Part 2 of the book, Developing and Using National and Regional Standards, presents chapters on developing national standards in Canada and Poland and on developing regional standards in the state of Catalonia in Spain. The chapter on school library development and school reform in Norway asks whether de facto guidelines can be the result of government programmes to reform schools and to improve student outcomes as measured by assessment programmes such as PISA. Part 3, Using Standards and Guidelines to Change School Library Practice, describes two efforts to enhance and improve school library practice: (1) a school system in South Carolina, USA, transforms school libraries into learning commons through district-wide initiatives, including having library media specialists and technology integration specialists work in teams, and (2) the School Libraries Network Programme in Portugal creates a set of learning standards associated with reading, information and media competencies that school librarians integrate into curricular activities.

XIV 

 Preface

Part 4 describes three initiatives for Using Standards for School Library Advocacy and Development. Members of the Swedish trade union, DIK, worked to actualize the 2010 Education Act which stipulated that all students should have “access to a school library” by defining “school library” and formulating the competence criteria for a “school librarian”. School library advocacy, based on these two concepts, is being conducted in Sweden through recognizing best practice with the World Class School Library award and through researching the impact of school library practice on student learning. Promoting the teaching role of the teacher librarian is another approach to school library advocacy. In Australia, teacher librarians are taking the opportunities offered by the new Australian Professional Standards for Teachers to achieve certification at the higher career stages of Highly Accomplished and Lead Teachers, thus getting recognition of their teaching expertise and raising their professional profiles. In rural Ethiopia, as throughout much of the majority world, specialized school libraries do not exist; instead, community libraries partner with local schools to support literacy and learning for all community members and thus constitute one type of library serving schools today. This chapter describes how library staff working in community libraries learn how to design programmes responsive to their particular contexts, enable inclusion, build partnerships, and serve as action researchers. The seven standards developed to guide this work are now being adapted for a new digital text/family literacy initiative. Part 5, Developing Guidelines for the Teaching Role of the School Librarian, describes two initiatives for developing curricula to support teaching and learning in the school library. In France, the professional association of professeurs documentalistes, FADBEN, has been working to develop a curriculum in information and documentation in order to achieve three goals: to merge information, media and digital educations; to contribute to the professional development of professeurs documentalistes; and to give a framework for teaching information, media and digital literacy. In a school in Western Australia, a teacher librarian and a lead teacher for English and literacy support worked with their whole staff to develop a note-taking continuum that has been integrated into the school’s continua (Scope and Sequences) for English and information literacy. Part 6 looks at Guidelines for the Initial Preparation of School Librarians from three perspectives: the history of the development of guidelines for school library education in the United States over the past three decades; the impact of guidelines and of local context on the development of school library education in the State of Hawaiʻi; and the relationship between standards and school library education in the State of California. This new book, Global Action on School Library Guidelines, will be launched twice, as was the 2011 book, at the annual conferences of the two sponsoring



Preface 

 XV

associations, the International Association of School Librarianship (IASL) and the International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions (IFLA). The launches will be held in conjunction with sessions on “Global Action on School Library Guidelines: Development and Implementation” at the IASL conference in Maastricht, Netherlands in June 2015 and at the IFLA World Library and Information Conference in Cape Town, South Africa in August 2015. We are looking forward to celebrating the new book and the new international school library guidelines with you! Barbara A. Schultz-Jones Dianne Oberg Editors 15 February 2015

Part 1 Developing International School Library Part 1 Guidelines

Dianne Oberg

1 International School Library Guidelines A Brief History Abstract: Work began on the development of international school library standards and guidelines in the 1970s, in conjunction with the development of two international school library groups: the School Libraries section of the International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions (IFLA) in 1977 and the International Association of School Librarianship (IASL) in 1971. The foundational document for international school library standards and guidelines is the IFLA/UNESCO School Library Manifesto, published in 1999. The Manifesto was followed by the IFLA/UNESCO School Library Guidelines, published in 2002 and revised in 2015. Keywords: IFLA/UNESCO School Library Manifesto; IFLA/UNESCO Public Library Manifesto; IFLA/UNESCO School Library Guidelines; Caldès de Montbui; National Library of Canada.

Introduction Guidelines for school libraries were being developed for many decades by national and regional school library associations and educational bodies before the development of international school library guidelines was attempted. For example, the School Libraries Section of the American Library Association (ALA) held its first meeting in 1915, and ALA issued its first school library guidelines in 1920 and has continued to issue new and revised guidelines on a regular basis (1945, 1960, 1969, 1975, 1988, 1998, and 2009). In contrast, the International Association of School Librarianship (IASL) was inaugurated in 1971, and the School Libraries Section of the International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions (IFLA), in 1977 (Knuth 1996, Wilhite 2012). During the 1980s and 1990s, the IFLA School Libraries Section published a number of guideline documents: on the management of school libraries (Galler and Coulter 1989); on the development of school libraries (Carroll 1990); and on the education and training of school librarians (Hannesdóttir 1986, 1995). During the 1990s, the section also changed its name to the School Libraries and Resource Centers Section; in 2013, the section reverted to its original name, the School Libraries Section.

4 

 Dianne Oberg

The Section took the lead in developing the IFLA/UNESCO School Library Manifesto, published in 1999, and in 2002 issued new international school library guidelines based on the principles expressed in the manifesto (Sætre and Willars 2002). The Section was inspired in this work by the work of the 1993 pre-conference in Caldès de Montbui, Spain, co-sponsored by UNESCO, IFLA School Libraries Section and the International Association of School Librarianship (IASL) (IFLA School Libraries Section 1997) and by the publication in 1994 of the IFLA/ UNESCO Public Library Manifesto (IFLA 1994). Those involved in creating the School Library Manifesto and the School Library Guidelines faced the challenges faced by all who develop standards and guidelines documents plus the additional challenges of creating documents that would be meaningful to educators in many different roles (e.g., librarians, teachers, principals, superintendents, ministers of education, ministers of culture, and so on), working in very diverse economic and sociocultural environments. All guidelines represent a compromise between what we aspire to achieve and what we can reasonably expect to achieve. People who consult standards and guidelines documents to guide practice, to advocate for future improvements in libraries, or to develop school libraries, need to be sure that those particular standards and guidelines are applicable to the situation, that is, if they make sense, if they “resonate”. People who consult standards and guidelines documents need to ask themselves: Who created these documents? Where were they created? When were they created? Who were they created for? This brief history of the development of the IFLA/UNESCO School Library Manifesto and IFLA/UNESCO School Library Guidelines should help in answering those questions. For this history, the author has relied upon multiple sources, including her memories as a School Libraries Standing Committee member (1998–2002, 2007– 2011, 2013–2015) and the memories of Randi Lundvall (School Libraries Standing Committee member, 2007–2015). Gwyneth Evans, former Director General, National and International Programs at the National Library of Canada, provided invaluable information about the process of developing the School Library Manifesto and about the influence of the work completed at the 1993 satellite conference, “School Libraries in the Developing World”, held in Caldès de Montbui, Spain. Published source materials cited in this chapter are provided in the References list.



1 International School Library Guidelines 

 5

The Development of the IFLA/UNESCO School Library Manifesto What is the purpose of the School Library Manifesto? Why do we have it? Gwyneth Evans (2007) explained the purpose of the document in this way: We live in an interconnected world and what happens in one place does affect us all. We have standards and values in our profession, and we want to develop statements that reflect those standards. We do not want to duplicate high level documents when there is so much to do in implementing them and addressing the changes we face. By sharing our knowledge and experience, we are reinforcing our common humanity while understanding our diversity.

The manifesto (see Appendix) is titled IFLA/UNESCO School Library Manifesto: The School Library in Teaching and Learning for All. It begins with a clear statement of vision: The school library provides information and ideas that are fundamental to functioning successfully in today’s information and knowledge-based society. The school library equips students with life-long learning skills and develops the imagination, enabling them to live as responsible citizens.

The remainder of the document is organized around six elements that are critical to the development and maintenance of this vision: Mission; Funding, legislation and networks; Goals of the school library; Staff; Operation and management; and Implementation. The preliminary work that led to the development of the School Library Manifesto began in the mid-1970s in Australia, and a number of publications on standards and guidelines were produced with the support of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) and international associations including IFLA and IASL. However, the 1993 IFLA pre-conference on “School Libraries in the Developing World” held in Caldès de Montbui, Spain, was a strong catalyst for action in developing international guidelines. The format of the Caldès meeting encouraged sharing information and developing action plans. Keynote papers addressed the essential issues; national country profiles presented school library development in every continent; the participants worked in discussion groups to develop recommendations for the organizing bodies – UNESCO, IFLA, and IASL. There were representatives at the meeting from 28 countries. The participants noted that the state of school libraries at the time was generally poor and that there was a lack of support for school libraries among politicians, government officials and school administrators.

6 

 Dianne Oberg

Every participant was asked to make a promise to do something concrete towards fulfilling the recommendations. One of the resolutions asked for a fairer policy within IFLA, and asked that IFLA: urge its member associations to work with other educational and professional bodies to encourage national educational authorities to develop a policy on the role of school libraries in national development, as part of National Education policy; to introduce necessary legislation, and to improve financial support of school libraries and centralised support services for school libraries. (Papazoglou 2000, 4)

The work that followed up the Caldès meeting was taken on by a team of Canadians who had attended the meeting: Paulette Bernhard and Anne Galler from universities in Montreal and Gwyneth Evans from the National Library of Canada. They committed themselves to working with national and international associations to identify the needs of the school library community around the world and thus to provide a credible basis on which to develop a statement on school libraries. The National Library of Canada distributed an international survey on school library policies to 51 countries. There were 26 respondents to the survey. Approximately half of the responding countries had national school library policies; some had local or regional policies. In the majority of cases, responsibility for school library policies fell to the ministry of education or to the ministry of culture; in a few others, another agency (e.g., a library association) regulated library policy. The first draft of the School Library Manifesto, modelled on the IFLA/UNESCO Public Library Manifesto, was completed at the National Library of Canada and circulated to members of the Canadian School Library Association, to the IFLA School Libraries and Resource Centers Section, and to IASL officers. Several drafts were completed and circulated between 1996 and 1998. Then, in 1998, a UNESCO-sponsored meeting was held in Amsterdam to discuss the final document. Sixty school library experts attended, including delegates from Senegal, Turkey, South Africa, Sri Lanka and Chile, and they made valuable contributions towards the rewriting of the text of the document. There was strong agreement that there was need for a school library manifesto drafted and supported by IFLA and published under the auspices of UNESCO. Having achieved consensus on the main points, a small committee prepared the version that was approved by the Professional Board of IFLA in 1999. It was clear to all that both the educational and cultural sectors of UNESCO would have to be involved in the approval and implementation of the document. The National Library of Canada never lost interest, nor relaxed its support and, in November 1999, steered the manifesto through the protocols and rigours of ratification by the UNESCO Division of General Information Programme (PGI) and General Conference.



1 International School Library Guidelines 

 7

The next challenge for the international school library community was dissemination and implementation. For the 1999 World Library and Information Conference (WLIC) of IFLA, held in Bangkok, Thailand, the School Libraries and Resource Centers Standing Committee organized a full-day workshop to discuss the School Library Manifesto and to generate ideas for the dissemination of the concepts presented in the manifesto and for implementation of the strategies included in the document, in particular: Governments, through their ministries responsible for education, are urged to develop strategies, policies and plans that implement the principles of the Manifesto. Plans should include the dissemination of the Manifesto to initial and continuing training programmes for librarians and teachers. (IFLA 1999)

In the School Libraries and Resource Centers’ Annual Report for 1998–1999 (Willars 2000), the Chair reported that there were presentations at the Bangkok workshop from Ross Shimmon, Secretary General of IFLA, Paulette Bernhard (Canada), Torny Kjekstad (Norway), Gwyneth Evans (Canada), Beatriz Ferroni (Argentina), and Inci Onal (Turkey). The second part of the workshop consisted of group work. Two English-speaking groups were led by Dianne Oberg (Canada) and Torny Kjekstad (Norway) and a French-speaking group was led by Colette Charrier-Ligonat (France). The workshop participants were well aware of the levels of involvement that would be necessary in promotion and implementation: international (IFLA, IASL, UNESCO); national (governmental and nongovernmental agencies); private sector (publishers, booksellers, library suppliers); and local (regional governments, local bodies such as the public library service, associations of principals, teachers and parents). They also were aware of the ways in which the manifesto might be used: to inform the development of national and local policies and guidelines; to support strategic and operations plans, especially in schools and in regional educational authorities; and to be used in the initial and continuing training of teachers and librarians. They also pointed out that advocacy and promotion of the manifesto would need to be carried out bearing in mind the local context, the current situation, and the potential for future changes. The workshop was opened by Ross Shimmon, who stated in his address: Children desperately need to have better access to books and all those other media which are sources of information, ideas and, I stress, works of imagination and inspiration. Many governments around the world spend a lot of money and other resources on the vital task of teaching children to read. But they do not spend nearly enough on ensuring that children have easy access to interesting materials for them to exercise their newly acquired skill.

8 

 Dianne Oberg A key task of the school librarian is to help them to assess what they are reading (and what they are receiving from other media, especially the mass media), so that, as they grow up, they can make their own decisions – an essential characteristic of civilized and democratic societies. We should not forget that it is in the interests of our own profession that we give more attention to school libraries. After all, many of today’s children will be the next generation of politicians, civil servants and business leaders. They will be making decisions about the future of our national libraries, public libraries, libraries in universities, colleges and schools, and those in the corporate sector. If they valued the resources and the help available from their school library and their school librarian, they are surely more likely to see the value of adequate funding for libraries when they have to make such decisions later in life. (Papazoglou 2000, 6)

Many activities were carried out in the next few years to disseminate the School Library Manifesto and to encourage its use. The Chair of the IFLA School Libraries and Resource Centers Standing Committee, Glenys Willars (United Kingdom), spoke at conferences in Norway and Chile. Colleagues at the National Library of Canada designed a leaflet containing the text of the Manifesto, and it was translated and made available in many languages.1 School library leaders in various countries spoke about the Manifesto at their national and regional conferences.

The Development of the IFLA/UNESCO School Library Guidelines During the development of the IFLA/UNESCO School Library Manifesto, the issue was raised as to the need for school library standards or guidelines to support the principles laid out in the manifesto and to interpret those principles in practical terms. The Chair of the School Libraries and Resource Centers section noted in the section’s Annual Report for 1998–1999 (Willars 2000), that work had begun on the guidelines, and at the 2000 IFLA WLIC, held in Jerusalem, the section sponsored a full-day workshop on “Guidelines for School Libraries” . After a strong start, however, the work stalled. According to the 18 August 2001 Minutes of the Standing Committee Meeting,2 the Working Group on Guidelines for School Libraries had not been able to have a meeting, but hope was expressed that the working group would be able to meet in the fall (September to November) to work on the project. The section’s Action Plan for 2002–2003, 1 http://www.ifla.org/publications/iflaunesco-school-library-manifesto-1999?og=52. Accessed on 19 March 2015. 2 http://archive.ifla.org/VII/s11/min/min01.htm. Accessed on 19 March 2015.



1 International School Library Guidelines 

 9

attached to the 2001 Minutes, included this item: “Publish new guidelines for school libraries and learning resources centres and promote them alongside the IFLA/UNESCO School Library Manifesto”. Over the year 2001–2002, the Working Group on School Library Guidelines met in London, Helsingor and Bergen, and a final version of the guidelines, edited by Glenys Willars (United Kingdom) and Tove Pemmer Saetre (Norway), was presented to the section in August 2002. Many offers were made, by Standing Committee members and observers, to translate the guidelines into many languages including Danish, Polish, Swedish, Norwegian, Russian, Icelandic, French, Spanish, and Catalan.3 Later that year, the School Library Guidelines were approved by the Governing Board of IFLA and endorsed by UNESCO.

Conclusion Some work has been done on the history of the early years of the International Association of School Librarianship (see, for example, Knuth 1996; Lowrie and Nagakura 1991), but the history of the early years of the IFLA School Libraries Section still needs to be written. This history of the development of the IFLA/ UNESCO School Library Manifesto and IFLA/UNESCO School Library Guidelines is far from complete, but it does begin to explore one aspect of the work of the two major international school library groups. The story of the implementation of the School Library Manifesto and the IFLA/UNESCO School Library Guidelines is largely untold. Chapters of this book may tell some parts of the story, but a full history has yet to be written. These international documents may have had some impact on school library policies and practices and on school library programs that have contributed to the development of students’ information literacy, their reading and their cultural identity. However, research on the impact of the School Library Manifesto and the School Library Guidelines has not yet been done.

References Carroll, Frances Laverne. 1990. Guidelines for School Libraries. The Hague: IFLA Headquarters. IFLA Professional Reports, No. 20.

3 http://archive.ifla.org/VII/s11/min/min02.htm. Accessed on 19 March 2015.

10 

 Dianne Oberg

Evans, Gwyneth. 2007. “The School Library Manifesto: Its Development, Purpose, Content and Application.” Paper presented for the IFLA Reading Section, 26 March 2007, San José, Costa Rica. Galler, Anne M. and Joan M. Coulter. 1989. Managing School Libraries. The Hague: IFLA Headquarters. IFLA Professional Reports, No. 17. Hannesdóttir, Sigrún Klara, ed. 1986. Guidelines for the Education and Training of School Librarians. The Hague: IFLA Headquarters. IFLA Professional Reports, No. 9. Hannesdóttir, Sigrún Klara, ed. 1995. School librarians: Guidelines for Competency Requirements. The Hague: IFLA Headquarters. IFLA Professional Reports, No. 41. [Revised edition of Professional Report No. 9]. IFLA. 1994. IFLA/UNESCO Public Library Manifesto. The Hague: IFLA Headquarters. http://www. ifla.org/publications/iflaunesco-public-library-manifesto-1994. Accessed on 30 January 2015. IFLA. 1999. IFLA/UNESCO School Library Manifesto. The Hague: IFLA Headquarters. http://www. ifla.org/publications/iflaunesco-school-library-manifesto-1999. Accessed on 30 January 2015. IFLA School Libraries Section. 1997. Proceedings of the IFLA Pre-Session Seminar on School Libraries. Caldes de Montbui (Barcelona), Spain: 16–20 August 1993. Compiled and edited under the Auspices of the IFLA Section of School Libraries. The Hague: IFLA Headquarters. IFLA Professional Reports, No. 52. Knuth, Rebecca. 1996. “An International Forum: The History of the International Association of School Librarianship” School Libraries Worldwide 2(2): 1–32. Lowrie, Jean L. and Mieko Nagakura. 1991. School Libraries: International Developments. 2nd ed. Metuchen, NJ: The Scarecrow Press. Papazoglou, Alexandra, ed. 2000. “IFLA/UNESCO School Library Manifesto.” Newsletter: Section of School Libraries and Resource Centers 36 (July): 4–7. Sætre, Tove Pemmer and Glenys Willars. 2002. IFLA/UNESCO School Library Guidelines. The Hague: IFLA Headquarters. IFLA professional Reports, No. 77 [Revised edition of Professional Report No. 20]. http://www.ifla.org/files/assets/hq/publications/professional-report/77.pdf. Accessed on 17 February 2015. Wilhite, J. 2012. 85 Years IFLA: A History and Chronology of Sessions 1927–2012 [e-book]. Berlin: De Gruyter Saur. Available from: eBook Academic Collection (EBSCOhost), Ipswich, MA. Accessed on 28 January 2015. Willars, Glenys. 2000. Annual Report 1998–1999 of the Section of School Libraries and Resource Centers. http://archive.ifla.org/VII/s11/annual/ann99.htm. Accessed on 30 January 2015.

Barbara A. Schultz-Jones

2 Development of the New International 2 School Library Guidelines 2 Development of the New International School Library Guidelines

Abstract: The IFLA/UNESCO School Library Guidelines were first introduced in 2002 to support the foundational principles expressed in the IFLA/UNESCO School Library Manifesto 1999 and interpret those principles in practical terms. A revision to the 2002 edition of the Guidelines was deemed necessary to reflect current research, practice and conditions of 21st-century school librarianship. The twoyear process of revision involved a wide network of international contributors, guided by a Joint Committee from the International Federation of Library Associations (IFLA) School Libraries Section and the International Association of School Librarianship (IASL). The process of developing the Guidelines for approval from the IFLA Governing Board and UNESCO endorsement is detailed along with a discussion of significant content areas, challenges, and lessons learned during this undertaking. Keywords: IFLA/UNESCO School Library Manifesto; IFLA/UNESCO School Library Guidelines; School library standards; International Association of School Librarianship; IFLA School Libraries Section.

Background The International Federation of Library Associations (IFLA) School Libraries Section (SLS) was formed in 1977 as one of the 44 sections within IFLA, the leading international body representing the interests of library and information services and their users since it was established in Edinburgh, Scotland in 1927. Since 1947 IFLA has had an agreement of mutual recognition with the United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), publishing jointly endorsed statements related to principles of library service. The work of IFLA is done through the Sections and the Standing Committees (up to 20 members, nominated by IFLA Association members) that form each Section, with added input from the Corresponding Members (up to five, appointed by the Standing Committee) who represent countries in geographical areas which might not otherwise be represented or who provide expertise in a specific subject field. Each Standing Committee is administered by a Chair, a Secretary, a Treasurer and an Information Coordinator. Standing Committee members can only serve for two consecutive terms of four years, and Corresponding Members are appointed

12 

 Barbara A. Schultz-Jones

for an initial two-year term, renewable for one further term of two years, on the decision of the Section Chair. The IFLA School Libraries Section strives to include representation from our international community. At the time the Guidelines were under review and revision the following countries were represented within the Standing Committee and the Corresponding Members: Canada, France, India, Italy, Japan, Malaysia, Netherlands, Nigeria, Norway, Sweden, United Kingdom, and United States. The system of evolving membership ensures that there are ongoing opportunities for membership and participation among the countries of the world. The number of physical meetings is small, with an annual World Library and Information Congress (WLIC) held in August in different parts of the world. Standing Committee members are expected to attend the two Standing Committee meetings at each WLIC and are invited to attend, if possible, the midyear meeting of the Section when it is held in the spring (April) in different parts of the world. Beyond the scheduled meetings, most of the committee’s work is done via email, telephone and Skype conferences through the coordinated efforts of the Section Chair and the Secretary. As stated on the IFLA SLS website, “The Section of School Libraries concerns itself with the improvement and development of school libraries and resource centers worldwide, especially advocacy for their qualified and adequate staffing. It provides an international forum for exchanging ideas, experiences, research results and advocacy.” This allegiance to the school library field reflects the understanding and belief in the role of school libraries in “teaching and learning for all” (IFLA 1999, 1). Two primary publications produced by the SLS provide fundamental principles of school library service: the 1999 IFLA/UNESCO School Library Manifesto and the 2002 IFLA/UNESCO School Library Guidelines. The revision of the 2002 edition of the international guidelines was the result of an orderly process of review and energetic debate by the members of the School Libraries Section in association with members of the International Association of School Librarianship (IASL).

Process of revision The genesis for the revision of the 2002 IFLA/UNESCO School Library Guidelines was a review of the document and discussion among the Standing Committee members of the School Library Section, chaired by Randi Lundvall (Norway), at the IFLA WLIC 2013 in Helsinki, Finland. Both the IFLA/UNESCO School Library



2 Development of the New International School Library Guidelines 

 13

Manifesto and the 2002 IFLA/UNESCO School Library Guidelines were reviewed, and the consensus was that the manifesto, translated into 37 languages and one of only three IFLA manifestos to garner UNESCO ratification, remained relevant; the School Library Manifesto expressed universal principles of school librarianship and was being used successfully to raise the profile of school libraries in their own schools, regions and countries. The 2002 School Library Guidelines, on the other hand, that intended to “inform decision makers at national and local levels around the world, and to give support and guidance to the library community” (Sætre and Willars 2002, 2), were certainly written to help schools to implement the principles expressed in the manifesto but they did not reflect current research, practice and conditions of 21st-century school librarianship. The revision of the 2002 School Library Guidelines became part of the Action Plan of the School Libraries Section for 2013–2014 which was updated in April 2013 at the Standing Committee midyear meeting in Oslo, Norway. Joining these efforts was the IASL membership, represented by members on the Joint Committee of IFLA/IASL, chaired by Dianne Oberg (Canada). A timeline for the revision of the Guidelines was established (Table 2.1) and the work commenced with a workshop at IFLA WLIC 2013 in Singapore. Table 2.1: Timeline for Development of the 2015 IFLA School Library Guidelines Date

Action

August 2013 September 2013

Workshop IFLA WLIC, Singapore Summaries from workshop completed by facilitators and sent to Joint Committee Joint Committee feedback to IFLA School Libraries Section Chair First draft of guidelines completed by Joint Committee Joint Committee feedback sent to IFLA School Libraries Section Chair Midyear School Libraries Section meeting in London, UK; second draft completed Feedback from Joint Committee on second draft Editing and formatting of third draft completed by Section Chair and Secretary Review of third draft by IFLA School Libraries Section Standing Committee members Review of third draft by IASL Executive Board Workshop and endorsement of fourth draft at IFLA WLIC, Lyon, France Workshop and endorsement of fifth draft at IASL Moscow, Russia Call for entries for the Bibliography Distribution and integration of feedback for the Recommendations section Submission to IFLA Governing Board for approval and forwarding to UNESCO

October 2013 December 2013 February 2014 April 2014 May 2014 June 2014 July 2014 July 2014 August 2014 September 2014 January 2015 January 2015 January 2015

14 

 Barbara A. Schultz-Jones

The initial step in revising the Guidelines was to examine each chapter of the 2002 Guidelines at the two-hour workshop in Singapore and to garner feedback on the accuracy and scope of coverage of each chapter. Since the workshop was held during a WLIC, any interested IFLA members could attend and participate. Approximately thirty interested participants from school and public libraries, representing a wide variety of countries, assembled to provide feedback on the 2002 edition of the Guidelines and offer suggestions for the revision. With a round table assigned to each chapter, participants were asked to choose where to make their contribution. All chapters were actively reviewed, discussed, and debated; chapter feedback was presented to the full group for further discussion. The summaries and feedback from the workshop were sent to the Joint Committee members for further comment and assembled into a first draft revision by the newly elected School Libraries Section Chair, Barbara Schultz-Jones (USA), and Secretary, Dianne Oberg (Canada). The first draft was distributed to the IFLA/IASL Joint Committee members and additional feedback was collected and integrated into a draft document for review at the April 2014 midyear Standing Committee meeting in London, UK. The midyear meeting focused entirely on reviewing and revising the draft to produce a second draft for wider distribution. At this point, the IASL listserv was used to distribute the second draft for international feedback. The response to the wider scope of the guidelines and revised chapter organization was very positive, and additional comments and suggestions were received, debated and integrated into a third draft. The third draft of the guidelines was distributed and presented at the second major international workshop in August 2014 at IFLA WLIC in Lyon, France. The format for review was the same as the first workshop, but the interest and availability of contributors had grown to 100 in number, with significant representation (30 participants) from our French colleagues. Participants were asked to choose and join a round table assigned to a specific chapter. In some cases, more than one table was needed to accommodate interest in a specific chapter and in many cases translators were utilized to conduct the discussions. The twohour workshop was facilitated by members of the IFLA School Libraries Section Standing Committee, many of whom are multilingual, and all feedback and suggestions were documented. Each table examined a chapter, recorded comments, and presented their response to the full group for discussion and further debate. Endorsement for the additions to the third draft was received, and a fourth draft was later prepared by the Standing Committee Chair and Secretary for future discussion. At the annual IASL conference of September 2014 in Moscow, Russia the fourth draft was presented in a one-hour workshop. Each chapter was presented



2 Development of the New International School Library Guidelines 

 15

to the full group of fifty participants and all additions, deletions, and comments were considered and addressed. Endorsement for the fifth draft was received. The fifth draft was prepared by the Standing Committee Chair and Secretary and distributed again for final international comment through international listservs and to the participants of the workshops in Lyon and Moscow. Only minor edits were requested for the fifth draft. With the draft version complete, the final tasks were assembling a bibliography of citations of essential school library texts (2000 and later) that would be useful to our international audience, and extracting a set of recommendations from the guidelines that could be used as highlights of the guidelines’ major themes. Once again, the international listservs were used to enlist citations and distribute the set of recommendations for comment. Our international audience consistently provided meaningful and timely responses that enabled the construction of a final draft document for submission to the IFLA Governing Board in mid-January, 2015. The process of official endorsement is under way, and the IFLA/IASL Joint Committee hopes to introduce the new IFLA School Library Guidelines at the IASL 2015 annual conference in June at Maastricht, Netherlands and at the IFLA WLIC 2015 in Cape Town, South Africa. With this accomplishment, our focus turns to dissemination and implementation of the Guidelines.

Content of the 2015 IFLA School Library Guidelines While the 1999 IFLA/UNESCO School Library Manifesto expressed universal principles of school librarianship, the 2002 IFLA/UNESCO School Library Guidelines needed to be updated to express these principles as reflected in current international research and in the practices and conditions of 21st-century school librarianship. Over a period of about three years, the Guidelines underwent a significant revision (Table 2.2, p. 17) in order to fulfil the mandate “to inform decision makers at national and local levels around the world, to give support and guidance to the library community, and to help school leaders implement the principles expressed in the manifesto” (IFLA 2015, 12). To address the current and future condition of school librarianship worldwide, the 2015 Guidelines are intended to be: both inspirational and aspirational. The many contributors to this document were inspired by the mission and values of the school library, and they recognized that school library personnel and educational decision-makers, even in countries with well-resourced and well-supported school libraries, must struggle to be relevant to the learning needs of the

16 

 Barbara A. Schultz-Jones whole school community and to respond thoughtfully to the changing information environment within which they work. (12)

The evolving nature of the context for school libraries provides a challenging environment for creating and implementing guidelines that can be used to guide practice and also to advocate for future improvements in the local situation. And, while meeting the proposed standards is important: What is more important is the way that the members of the school community think about school libraries: working in service of the moral purpose of school libraries (i.e., making a difference in the lives of young people) and of the educational purpose of school libraries (i.e., improving teaching and learning for all). (13)

Highlights of the revised Guidelines include the definition of a school library as a “school’s physical and digital learning space where reading, inquiry, research, thinking, imagination, and creativity are central to students’ information-to-knowledge journey, and to their personal, social and cultural growth” (IFLA 2015, 16). The revised Guidelines emphasise the features of a school library based on an empirical foundation and rationale of more than 60 years of international research.

Context The Guidelines are meant to apply to school libraries of many different kinds, and the importance of local context is addressed frequently throughout the document. All school libraries, regardless of context or placement in developed or developing countries, exist on a continuum of practice. They exist “as learning environments that provide space (physical and digital), access to resources, access to activities and services to encourage and support student, teacher and community learning” (IFLA 2015, 16). The guidelines have no force of law, only the force of persuasion or inspiration, and they need to be implemented through legislation and through professional practice. It is possible that the international guidelines will inspire the development of national or regional standards and/or legislation where there are none at present. Regardless of the context, ultimately school libraries embody the basic concept expressed in the 1999 IFLA/UNESCO School Library Manifesto of “teaching and learning for all” (1).



2 Development of the New International School Library Guidelines 

 17

Table 2.2: Comparison of 2002 IFLA School Library Guidelines and 2015 IFLA School Library Guidelines Draft 2002 IFLA School Library Guidelines

2015 IFLA School Library Guidelines Draft

Chapter 1. Mission and Policy 1.1 Mission 1.2 Policy 1.3 Monitoring and Evaluation

Chapter 1. Mission and Purposes of a School Library 1.1 Introduction 1.2 Context 1.3 Definition of a school library 1.4 Role of a school library within a school 1.5 Conditions for an effective school library program 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9

Chapter 2. Resources 2.1 Funding and Budgeting for the School Library 2.2 Location and Space 2.3 Furniture and Equipment 2.4 Electronic and AV Equipment 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.8

Material Resources Collection Management Policy Material Collection Electronic Resources

Chapter 3. Staffing 3.1 Introduction 3.2 The Role of the School Librarian 3.3 The Role of the Library Assistant 3.4 Cooperation between Teachers and School Librarian 3.5 Skills of the School Library Staff 3.6 Duties of the School Librarian 3.7 Ethical Standards

Vision statement for a school library Mission statement for a school library School library services Evaluation of a school library services and programs

Chapter 2. Legal and Financial Framework for a School Library 2.1 Introduction 2.2 Legal bases and issues 2.3 Ethical bases and issues 2.4 Infrastructure support for school library development 2.5 Policies 2.6 Planning 2.7 Funding Chapter 3. Human Resources for a School Library 3.1 Introduction 3.2 Staffing roles and rationale 3.3 Definition of a school librarian 3.4 Competencies needed to provide school library programs 3.5 Roles of a professional school librarian 3.6 Roles and competencies of paraprofessional school library staff 3.7 Roles and competencies of a school library volunteer 3.8 Ethical standards Chapter 4. Physical and Digital Resources of a School Library 4.1 Introduction 4.2 Facilities 4.3 Collection development and management

18 

 Barbara A. Schultz-Jones

2002 IFLA School Library Guidelines

2015 IFLA School Library Guidelines Draft

Chapter 4. Programmes and Activities 4.1 Programmes 4.2 Cooperation and Resource Sharing with Public Libraries 4.3 Activities at School Level

Chapter 5. Programs and Activities of a School Library 5.1 Introduction 5.2 Programs and activities

Chapter 5. Promotion

Chapter 6. School Library Evaluation and Public Relations 6.1 Introduction 6.2 School library evaluation and evidence-based practice 6.3 Approaches to school library program evaluation 6.4 Impacts of school library program evaluations

5.1 Introduction 5.2 Marketing Policy 5.3 User Education 5.4 Model for a Study Skills and Information Literacy Programme

5.3 5.4 5.5 5.6 5.7 5.8

Literacy and reading promotion Media and information literacy instruction Inquiry-based learning models Technology integration Professional development for teachers Instructional role of a school librarian

6.5 School library public relations

Definition of a school library The definition of a school library now includes significant distinguishing features: “a qualified school librarian with formal education”, “targeted high-quality diverse collections (print, multimedia and digital) that support the school’s formal and informal curriculum”, and “an explicit policy and plan for ongoing growth and development” (IFLA 2015, 17). By including the school librarian as an integral part of the definition, the role of the school librarian as an educator is emphasised. Not all school libraries currently have a “qualified” school librarian, and many countries do not yet have a specialized way of educating school librarians, but this is an aspirational feature that research demonstrates will have an impact on student learning.



2 Development of the New International School Library Guidelines 

 19

Definition and role of a school librarian The school librarian’s role in teaching and learning is central to the school library programme. The role is recognized by several terms (school librarian, school library media specialist, teacher librarian, professeurs documentalistes) but the role itself includes: “instruction, management, leadership and collaboration, and community engagement” (IFLA 2015, 28). Instructional models for inquiry-based learning are included in Chapter 5. The emphasis on the importance of reading and information literacy is also included in Chapter 5.

Evaluation and Evidence-based Practice Evaluation of school library programmes and services helps ensure that they support the goals of the school. Approaches to school library evaluation include the ongoing approach of evidence-based practice to focus on improvement of practice.

Recommendations The inclusion of a set of recommendations provides a focused set of primary themes from the guidelines. These could be used for advocacy purposes and to focus efforts to evolve the development of a school library.

Examples An important addition to the 2015 Guidelines is the inclusion of various examples of school library practice from around the world, used to illustrate salient points within the document. The inclusion of examples was inspired by the first edition of the IFLA/UNESCO Public Library Guidelines, and the international response to this feature was gratifying. In addition to expanded coverage within the chapters, the new guidelines include a glossary of terms, a bibliography of works consulted during the preparation of the guidelines and contributed during an international call for citations of essential school library texts (2000 and later), and a set of appendices (Table 2.3) designed to support various areas of the Guidelines and provide additional detail.

20 

 Barbara A. Schultz-Jones

Table 2.3: 2015 IFLA School Library Guidelines Draft Appendices Appendix

Title

Appendix A Appendix B Appendix C Appendix D Appendix E

IFLA/UNESCO School Library Manifesto School library budget plan Instructional models for inquiry-based learning Sample school library evaluation checklist School library evaluation checklist for principals

In total, the revised IFLA School Library Guidelines constitute a significant representation of school libraries around the world, the evolving nature of school libraries, and the vision to “think globally and act locally in our efforts to provide the best possible school library services in the support of ‘teaching and learning for all’” (IFLA 2015, 13).

Challenges Encountered The process of constructing an international document and reaching international consensus was not without challenges. There are many different perspectives on school libraries around the world, and different terminology is used to describe these perspectives and practices. The process of developing international guidelines created an atmosphere that celebrated the variety that exists among school libraries, and blended multiple approaches to the establishment and use of guidelines across the world. The target audience for the guidelines was actively debated. It was challenging to create a set of guidelines that would be meaningful to educators in many different roles (e.g., librarians, teachers, principals, superintendents, ministers of education, ministers of culture, and so on), working in very diverse economic and sociocultural environments. All guidelines represent a compromise between what we aspire to achieve and what we can reasonably expect to achieve. In August of 2014, during the IFLA WLIC in Lyon, France, the new IFLA Standards process, guidelines and website were launched. The IFLA Standards Procedures Manual (IFLA 2014) provides guidance for the development of standards and guidelines by IFLA professional units and outlines the required steps needed to produce an IFLA document that acquires official IFLA approval. These steps include writing the document, seeking input on the contents, correctly formatting the document and including various components, and the required forms for submission to the Professional Committee of IFLA and beyond for final endorse-



2 Development of the New International School Library Guidelines 

 21

ment. The Guidelines will presented by IFLA to UNESCO for its endorsement, at which time UNESCO can be added to the title of the new Guidelines. The revision of the 2002 IFLA/UNESCO School Library Guidelines was under way before the new process was introduced so the documentation for an initial plan of action was not available when our process was initiated. We were, however, able to incorporate the required components, including the set of Recommendations that were not part of our original document. Beyond the omission of the initial plan of action, our Guidelines met all requirements and were duly submitted on 16 January 2015.

Lessons Learned The process of review by international participants which reflect best practice and local context is time consuming and potentially controversial. Maintaining a respectful line of communication and an orderly process was a shared responsibility that was fulfilled by dedicated professionals. The IFLA School Library Guidelines will need to be updated in the future. The first edition was published in 2002, and this revision is published in 2015. Our educational environment continues to evolve and school libraries will evolve alongside the challenge to educate current and future generations. Future updating will likely occur within a shorter interval than thirteen years, because of the leadership of people within IFLA and IASL; we now have a well established pattern of collaboration and shared interest in the need to keep our Guidelines relevant to our rapidly changing learning environments: These school library guidelines envision a world of inclusion, equity of opportunity and social justice. They will be implemented in the context of the 21st century, characterized by change, mobility, and interconnection across different levels and sectors (IFLA 2015, 13).

The successful completion of the process is a testament to the commitment of dedicated school librarians and school library educators worldwide. Contributing time and energy to the process reflects the interest and belief that school libraries, however they are configured and wherever they are situated, are instrumental in supporting and advancing student learning. Now, the responsibility and challenge to bring to life the meaning of the new IFLA School Library Guidelines lies with each and every educator.

22 

 Barbara A. Schultz-Jones

References IFLA. 1999. IFLA/UNESCO School Library Manifesto. The Hague: IFLA Headquarters. http://www. ifla.org/publications/iflaunesco-school-library-manifesto-1999. Accessed on 30 January 2015. IFLA. 2014. IFLA Standards Procedures Manual. http://www.ifla.org/node/8719. Accessed on 2 February 2015. IFLA. 2015. IFLA School Library Guidelines Draft. [Draft dated 12 January 2015.] Sætre, Tove Pemmer and Glenys Willars. 2002. IFLA/UNESCO School Library Guidelines. The Hague: IFLA Headquarters. IFLA professional Reports, No. 77 [Revised edition of Professional Report No. 20]. http://www.ifla.org/files/assets/hq/publications/ professional-report/77.pdf. Accessed on 17 February 2015.

Part 2 Developing and Using National Par t2 and Regional Guidelines

Carol Koechlin and Judith Sykes

3 Developing National Standards for 3 School Libraries in Canada 3 Developing National Standards for School Libraries in Canada

Abstract: Schools in Canada have a new tool to help them advance learning for the future. The new national standards for school libraries in Canada, Leading Learning: Standards of Practice for School Library Learning Commons in Canada, was officially launched on 30 May 2014 at the Canadian Library Association (CLA) Conference in Victoria, British Columbia. This standards document provides a guide for the transition of school libraries to vibrant centres of teaching and learning responsive to the diverse needs of learners today and into the future. In this chapter, the authors describe the process of developing the document. Keywords: Canada; Learning commons; National school library standards; Environments for teaching and learning.

Introduction Our increasingly networked world presents complexities for learning unknown just a few years ago, but at the same time offers fresh opportunities. Learning in ever-changing environments demands new ways of educating – a focus on inquiry, creative and critical thinking, multiple literacies, and working together to meet shared goals and knowledge building. Evolving learning approaches and definitions of learning success are the new realities, with the consequent need for creating innovative learning environments. (Canadian Library Association 2014, 4)

Schools in Canada have a new tool to help them advance school libraries and learning now and to lead them into the future. Leading Learning: Standards of Practice for School Library Learning Commons in Canada was officially launched on 30 May 2014 at the Canadian Library Association (CLA) Conference in Victoria, British Columbia. This document provides learning-focused non-linear standards as well as practical strategies and illustrations to guide the transition of school libraries to vibrant centres of teaching and learning responsive to the diverse needs of learners today and into the future. The national school library standards of practice actualize the International Federation of Libraries Association/United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (IFLA/ UNESCO) School Library Manifesto (IFLA 1999) vision within the education context in Canada. This fresh approach provides immediate direction for schools while recognizing the

26 

 Carol Koechlin and Judith Sykes

challenges and possibilities inherent in teaching and learning in rapidly changing information and technology environments. The school library provides information and ideas that are fundamental to functioning successfully in today’s information and knowledge-based society. The school library equips students with life-long learning skills and develops the imagination, enabling them to live as responsible citizens. (IFLA 1999)

Internationally, school libraries remain focused on providing the very best learning environments and programmes possible, due to the global vision, commitment and leadership of IFLA School Libraries Section, the International Association of School Librarianship (IASL), and the professionalism and dedicated work of individual school library groups around the world. We value this knowledge and leadership and welcome this opportunity to contribute our story of the development of Canadian standards for this publication, Global Action on School Library Guidelines.

Context and Need In Canada the work of school libraries has historically been supported by standards. The previous standards, Achieving Information Literacy: Standards for Canadian School Libraries, were published by CLA in 2003 (Asselin, Branch and Oberg 2003) and have been providing valuable directions for many years, but the current learning landscape required a bold break from tradition. The new standards needed to address shifts in education and provide fresh direction by tackling the building of new participatory learning environments and programmes to facilitate the drive for school wide change. Although many school library programmes in Canada are thriving models of inquiry learning and technology integration, and lead media literacies studies and inspiring reading programmes, we cannot claim national success. In spite of valiant efforts at every level of librarianship in Canada, school libraries, particularly staffing and programmes, have continued on a downward spiral for the past decade. Of particular concern are the inequities between provinces and territories and from region to region within the province or territory, noted in 2008 by Statistics Canada. One of the questions provincial and territorial committees responded to, as standards development began, was the status of school libraries in their districts, and the results were quite disturbing. Although regional committees reported that the vast majority of their schools had a school library, many did not have



3 Developing National Standards for School Libraries in Canada 

 27

the leadership and expertise of a qualified teacher librarian. We found a wide variety of non-teaching personnel in charge of the school library facility: parent volunteers, untrained clerks, and technicians with and without library training. We discovered non-teaching library technicians and librarians as well as teacher librarians with a wide range of preparatory qualifications and training across the regions. We also heard of schools where funding for new resources relied on community fundraising. Some library facilities were reported as warehouses of underused books. Many of these poorer schools and districts also reported no central assistance. However, in regions where schools were staffed with teacher librarians, we discovered strong professional associations and many cutting-edge programmes to provide exemplars for moving forward. These strong leaders were noted for their contributions to inquiry learning and to fostering the joy of reading for pleasure. Many were already embarking on learning commons transitions. Based on our knowledge of decline and disparity across our country and armed with the impact of excellent library programmes we uncovered, we were energized to push forward with this project with some urgency. The process began four years ago at the very first Treasure Mountain Canada (TMC) research symposium held in Edmonton, Alberta with a focus on “Transforming Canadian School Libraries to Meet the Needs of 21st Century Learners”. Treasure Mountain Canada is a participatory learning experience designed to bring researchers and practitioners together to discuss and debate current Canadian research and scholarly writing which can inform the role for school libraries vis-à-vis educational strategy and transformation. TMC is organized by an ad hoc committee biennially, with support from provincial library associations and from CLA committees and networks. TMC is patterned after the Treasure Mountain Retreats held in the United States since 1982 under the direction of Dr David Loertscher. One of the many excellent projects suggested in 2010 was the renewal of our National Standards for School Library Programs in Canada, Achieving Information Literacy. The work of exploring the possibilities began behind the scenes and continued informally over the next two years by individuals around the country who had attended the TMC symposium and were inspired by this project. In 2012, TMC2 participants met for another meeting of the minds in Ottawa, charged to explore “Learning for the Future” and possible frameworks to guide the writing of new standards. The work and synergy from these early collaborations was carried over to the establishment of the National Project. At this point, a formal partnership was forged with CLA, the CLA School Libraries Advisory Committee, and the Voices for School Libraries Network. A proposal to CLA secured funding for the editing and final design of the document; all other development

28 

 Carol Koechlin and Judith Sykes

and writing was collaborative and volunteer. The purpose of the project was to provide to those responsible for and committed to viable and successful school libraries in Canada measures and principles that could be used to determine the value and quality of a school library. The big picture vision emerging from the early work of TMC participants was to develop school library standards to guide the transition from school libraries to library learning commons, a whole-school approach to learning for the future. The transition of school libraries to a library learning commons (LLC) model was already successfully evolving in many Canadian provinces. The Ontario School Library Association (OSLA) published Together for Learning: School Libraries and the Emergence of the Learning Commons in 2010. This document was the catalyst for programme and facility changes in Ontario and around the country. Teacher librarians and administrators in British Columbia were beginning transitions from school libraries to learning commons and shared exciting findings about engaged learners. The movement in Alberta sported early success and has now resulted in a new school library learning commons policy released by the Alberta Ministry of Education in June 2014 (Alberta Education 2014). Looking internationally to United States, Australia and New Zealand, the founding members of the standards project were impressed by learning commons exemplars or similar approaches to school libraries transitioning to address 21st-century learning needs. With this rich background of proven success, the future of school libraries in Canada was envisioned in the standards as a learning commons with exciting and progressive attributes for the future of learning It took another two years of collaborative work to produce a common set of standards for all schools in Canada. The PDF document was launched at the 2014 CLA National Conference and Trade Show in Victoria, BC in conjunction with the third Treasure Mountain Canada school library research symposium.

Resources and Process Utilized A modest grant was obtained from CLA for the editing, layout and publication of the document as well as a French translation. A project leader and writing coordinator volunteered to organize and manage the project. A volunteer steering committee and focus group from various regions of Canada were established as long term reviewers and contributors to the major development. Right from the beginning the goal was to involve participation and collaboration from all ten provinces and three territories in Canada. We wanted the end result to be a national document with shared vision that would call for serious reinvestment in



3 Developing National Standards for School Libraries in Canada 

 29

school libraries to lead learning now and in the future. We are extremely proud of the collaborative process developed to flesh out and refine the new standards document. Collaborative digital documents provided for rich knowledge building environments to curate the thoughts and needs of committees across our country. Regionally every province and territory was invited to establish a committee to work on tasks at the local level. These committees were developed to represent an ideal school library “learning commons” team (e.g., teacher librarians, principals, library technicians, classroom teachers, parents, possibly students, and community librarians or other community representatives). The committees worked collaboratively in person and virtually to review and add to the work of the focus group. The committees were awarded specific tasks at each stage of the writing process (for example, Figure 3.1).

Figure 3.1: Writing Phase 1 – Task One: Discussion Starters, from Voices for School Libraries Network CLA National Project. Canadian Library Association (CLA) and Voices for School Libraries Network. Copyright ©2012.

The committees had access to a national project site (https://sites.google.com/ site/nationalslproject/)1 loaded with links to current research, documents, and professional articles to help them build background and keep current with school library initiatives and concerns. Another task was to submit evidence of school library work in local districts that could be used to illustrate each standard’s indicators. This work was embraced with enthusiasm and pride as each committee put forth their region’s best work as “See it in Action” illustrations for the indicators. All work was archived on our national site. Several teleconferences, funded 1 Website accessed on 6 March 2015.

30 

 Carol Koechlin and Judith Sykes

by CLA, were held over the final development year to provide opportunity for “real-time” reports and decision making as needed. These opportunities to speak to the project in person were highly valued by all and really helped to build community and dedication to the project.

Features of the Standards The document is in PDF format and is currently accessed from the SLIC (School Libraries in Canada) website. It is organized in three sections. An extensive biblio­ graphy for research/reference is linked to the main access page. 1. Transforming School Libraries to Learning Commons: This introduction highlights the focus and rationale for the document, defines the learning commons approach, and introduces the standards. 2. Leading Learning Framework: The heart of the document holds the standard charts, themes and growth indicators for each standard as well as authentic illustrations for each indicator. 3. Moving Forward: This practical section presents school leaders – principals, teacher librarians, leadership teams – with steps, charts, additional key resources and a glossary for implementing and sustaining the standards. Five critical themes thread through each section. These important concepts emerged as fuzzy ideas from the very first discussions and continued to gain clarity and strength as the writing progressed: –– Vision: School Library Learning Commons; –– Focus: Leading Learning; –– Inclusion: Entry Points for All Schools; –– Authenticity: Keeping it Real; and –– Sustainability: Implementation Supports and Future Actions.

Vision: School Library Learning Commons The new standards call for a transformation of school libraries to meet the needs of learners in Canada. There is also a call for serious re-investment in this critical hub of learning in every school. This movement is framed around Library Learning Commons serving as the centre and showcase for best practice and sustained school improvement.



3 Developing National Standards for School Libraries in Canada 

 31

A learning commons is a whole school approach to building a participatory learning community. The library learning commons is the physical and virtual collaborative learning hub of the school. It is designed to engineer and drive future-oriented learning and teaching throughout the entire school. Inquiry, project/problem-based learning experiences are designed as catalysts for intellectual engagement with information, ideas, thinking, and dialogue. Reading thrives, learning literacies and technology competencies evolve, and critical thinking, creativity, innovation and playing to learn are nourished. Everyone is a learner; everyone is a teacher working collaboratively toward excellence. (Canadian Library Association 2014, 5)

Focus: Leading Learning The document positions school libraries at the centre of teaching and learning with a focus on enabling student achievement and growth as productive citizens in Canada. The work of an effective school library learning commons is framed by five core standards of practice that weave together to generate dynamic learning. Meeting all the standards for funding, for technology, for collections, for staffing, and for facilities does not necessarily guarantee the best teaching and learning environment. What is more important is the way that the members of the school community think about school libraries: working in service of the moral purpose of school libraries (i.e., making a difference in the lives of young people) and of the educational purpose of school libraries (i.e., improving teaching and learning for all). Facilities, collections, staff, and technology are only means to that end. (IFLA 2015, Introduction)

Figure 3.2: Standards of Practice for School Library Learning Commons in Canada, from Leading Learning: Standards of Practice for School Library Learning Commons in Canada, 8. Canadian Library Association (CLA). Copyright © 2014.

32 

 Carol Koechlin and Judith Sykes

Inclusion: Entry Points for All Schools The project’s steering committee and focus group decided right from the beginning that this work would be useful to every school and enrich teaching and learning for all. Knowing the realities and disparities from school to school, district to district, we established four levels of implementation and a continuum of growth indicators plus an added pre-standards recognition for schools starting with very little. Our goal is to provide the best learning opportunities for all students in Canada regardless of the challenges.

Figure 3.3: Transitional Growth Phases of a Library Learning Commons, from Leading Learning: Standards of Practice for School Library Learning Commons in Canada, 8. Canadian Library Association (CLA). Copyright © 2014.

Exploring – Although research and practice make it clear that every child deserves the expert support of a teacher librarian, we must provide a point of entry for every school to begin the stages towards building a learning commons. With this in mind, we acknowledge a pre-standards level of “Exploring” because we have many schools libraries, if they exist at all, managed by personnel with no library or educational training. At this pre-standards level the school community will be utilizing the standards and resources in the eBook to begin the review of their school library and to help them develop goals and action plans for moving forward. “The growth continuum charts begin with schools already in the first phase of learning commons transitions but will also be a great help to exploring schools establishing points of entry” (Canadian Library Association 2014). Emerging – At this first level schools have “embraced the School Library Learning Commons concepts and they have established a Learning Commons Leadership Team to begin the work of preparing the library facility, collections, technologies and teaching and support staff for renewed focus on learning in changing environments” (Canadian Library Association 2014). In terms of staffing the school has professional staff (teacher librarian, learning commons teacher or library technician). We urge principals to ensure that if they have professional non-teaching staff they also assign a keen and capable teacher from the classroom to take the lead in the LC with regard to programme. We can still begin utilizing the potential of the Learning Commons resources for teaching if we have a teacher designate to shape programmes around each provincial/ter-



3 Developing National Standards for School Libraries in Canada 

 33

ritorial curriculum. Once teachers and administrators begin to realize that this learning environment offers many new opportunities they will invest and move forward along the continuum. Evolving – The second level is a budding LLC programme but realistically there are probably still staffing and scheduling issues; yet progress in teaching and learning is evident. “The Learning Commons Leadership Team is building a collaborative school culture with teachers and students with a focus on inquiry learning that utilizes the teaching expertise, resources, technologies and spaces of the School Library Learning Commons” (Canadian Library Association 2014). Established – The third level is where we would like all schools to be, with teacher librarians in place facilitating excellent programmes, perhaps only part time, but the culture of collaboration and participatory learning is established and the LLC programme is advancing school improvement. “The School Library Learning Commons is dedicated to building teaching partnerships to design and guide engaging and effective collaborative learning and participatory knowledge building experiences” (Canadian Library Association 2014). Leading – The fourth level is to provide opportunity for an exemplary programme and for leadership to take us forward; this is a growth continuum, not a rubric; therefore, we keep on responding to changes and needs and in the true spirit of learning commons reach out to help others and build capacity as a national and global community of learners.

Authenticity: Keeping It Real Every step of the development was reviewed by many experienced eyes and minds. A great deal of generous feedback was compiled from our expert focus group, committees and library leaders, particularly in relation to the number of indicators for each theme that were initially drafted. We heard very clearly that we needed to be as concise and clear as possible in order that every school in Canada could see themselves working through the stages and indicators over time to develop practice and not become overwhelmed by “yet another document”. It had to be do-able, grow-able and livable as well as scholarly and based on pedagogical best practice. We believe that the collaborative writing/reviewing process and teams helped us to achieve all of this and more. Most standards ended up with six themes and two with seven. Each theme has four indicators across four stages or phases of development. Indicator charts begin with the exploring phase because it provides a point of entry for schools just beginning to implement the standards. We also wanted to reinforce the point

34 

 Carol Koechlin and Judith Sykes

that schools may be at different places in each phase – emerging in some, leading in others – as they implement the document and grow their practice (Koechlin and Sykes 2014).

Figure 3.4: Vision for Learning Theme and Growth Indicators from Leading Learning: Standards of Practice for School Library Learning Commons in Canada, 11. Canadian Library Association (CLA). Copyright © 2014.

Much discussion arose in the editorial stages of the document regarding how to best incorporate the wonderful illustrations and their annotations. We hope to have a dedicated website soon which will make it much easier to link to illustrations, add webinars, videos and networking spaces. This was a challenge to achieve in a PDF document. The interim solution? When clicking on the term “See It In Action”, the reader is taken to a “note card” outlining all the information about the example, along with a direct link to view it (Koechlin and Sykes 2014). The next challenge, of course, is how to keep the links live and updated!

Sustainability: Implementation Supports and Future Actions “Moving Forward” is the last section of the document and it calls for a collaborative whole-school implementation process. Strategic steps to initiate LLC development at the school, district or even government ministry level are included, followed by a glossary of key terms that run throughout the document. A series of appendices provides additional practical tips and tools for implementation. Transitioning to effective learning-commons practice is a continuous journey that will take different amounts of time for schools. It is a whole-school effort with a team approach and varied roles and responsibilities. The important part is to begin, set goals, achieve, celebrate and keep getting better! Collaborative teams leading



3 Developing National Standards for School Libraries in Canada 

 35

Figure 3.5: Key Steps for Implementation: Essential Process and Conditions for Success, from Leading Learning: Standards Of Practice For School Library Learning-Commons In Canada, 22. Canadian Library Association (CLA). Copyright © 2014.

whole school ownership of learning commons development and responsibilities will propel development, implementation, experimentation and sustainability. Everyone needs to be welcomed to the process and do their part – principals and other school administrators, teachers, teacher librarians, library technicians, community librarians, parents and students (Koechlin and Sykes 2014).

36 

 Carol Koechlin and Judith Sykes

Challenges and Lessons Learned The new standards have been developed to advance teaching and learning for all elementary and secondary schools in Canada. The biggest challenge for facilitating this project was giving voice to every region in our vast country. Regional curricula, economics, staffing practices and contracts led to discrepancies in understanding terminology and school library approaches. Much time and effort was invested in finding common language that could be meaningful to everyone and not limit the intent of the standard’s work. As Canada is a bilingual country, a French translation is required and will be available soon. The story of the extraordinary writing journey to produce the finished work is an example of the possibilities of learning today in our networked world. The document was the fruition of many dedicated individuals and groups passionate about the future of school libraries from almost every corner of Canada. Digital writing environments were organized in Google documents for each regional committee to enable collaborative writing and review. One of the many benefits of using this process was the number of contributors involved and the building of national community rallying around this important project. Leading Learning is truly a national collaborative document.

Purpose, Benefits, Evaluation and Limitations of School Library Standards The intended purpose of having school library guidelines is to provide a useful tool for all schools to assist with design and implementation of programmes and facilities that best meet the needs of all learners today and into the future. In developing the Canadian standards, we strived to achieve equitable opportunities to learn with best resources and support possible for students in all schools in spite of very diverse conditions. The standards are focused on student learning and thus are designed to provide success indicators for educators to apply when developing programmes for all Canadian students in collaboration with the school library learning commons. These indicators and “See It In Action” examples will help to design and integrate learning experiences that advance information literate, responsible and savvy users of information and ideas and promote lifelong learning. The standards indicators serve also as catalysts to advance culturally appreciative and active students as they mature to take on their role as Canadian and global citizens.



3 Developing National Standards for School Libraries in Canada 

 37

National school library guidelines provide many benefits for all stakeholders. District and school administrators now have clear criteria and exemplars for developing library facilities and programmes based on best practice pedagogy and national expertise. Library learning commons teams can find starting points for developing programmes and examples of physical facility transitions. Teacher librarians have clear standards and indicators for creating short- and long-term goals. Classroom teachers can see examples of best practice in the library to help with collaborative planning. Parents and other community members can explore the standards to consider points where they can best support the library learning commons. The standards are very new; thus, CLA and regional school library organizations are just beginning the promotion and implementation process. In the near future plans are bubbling to create a website with more examples and support to complement this first stage of the project. A committee needs to be established to develop action plans for implementation and review of the impact these standards have on school improvement. Many districts have not waited for this committee and are already starting off the new school year with professional development to introduce the standards to teacher librarians and other library staff as well as administrators. These early adopters will provide excellent examples for the implementation committee to build from. We have many tools within the standards document to help schools during transitions but we are also preparing support materials for teacher librarians to conduct action research in their schools so site-based evidence can be gathered and shared. Some provincial Ministries of Education have already expressed interest and plans are under way to address the providers of education and professional development for school library staff to recommend future training using the standards as a guide. Evaluation of practice is an essential aspect of implementing the new Standards of Practice for School Libraries in Canada. School libraries and school librarians are rarely evaluated in a consistent and systematic way, but evaluations help to ensure that the library’s programs and services are “relentlessly focused on learning”. (Oberg 2014, 1) Implementing and sustaining Leading Learning: Standards of Practice for School Library Learning Commons in Canada will require each school to pose many questions and collaborate for strategic solutions to move through and beyond its phases.... By following the steps to implementation and using strategic tools to provide direction and sustenance, students in every part of the country will receive the best possible preparation for their future. (Sykes 2014, 11–12) Evaluation is an essential aspect of implementing school library programs and services. Evaluation can address decision making or problem solving (accountability concerns); it

38 

 Carol Koechlin and Judith Sykes

also can influence people’s thinking about the school library and develop support for the school library (transformation concerns). (IFLA 2015, Section 6.1)

We already see positive impact at the national level. In a recent expert panel report by the Royal Society of Canada, Leading Learning: Standards of Practice for School Library Learning Commons, is cited as a model for school libraries now and in the future, and strong recommendations are made in the report to support this vision Canada-wide, for example, Recommendation 53: “Ministries of Education work with Boards of Education and their respective schools to provide the sustainable funding necessary to realize the development of school libraries/learning commons” (The Royal Society of Canada 2014, 158). The guidelines are only limited by innovative commitment to the vision; however, they do create some new challenges for us and for each district and individual school community. As a national organization we need to work creatively and systematically to get the word out and market the potential. We will be challenged to develop sustainability to keep the standards examples current and growing. We will need to develop processes and strategies to ensure accountability and deal with concerns. At the school level, administrators and planning teams will be challenged to move from worrying about costs of transitions to developing outcomes-based budgets, using the learning and teaching indicators from the standards. They will also need to change thinking about the school library as a place filled with resources to an approach to learning with the emphasis on people rather than things. Staffing of school libraries and training of qualified teacher librarians to lead learning in schools and districts will be a primary limitation if the vision and intent of the standards document is not recognized. A serious re-investment in school libraries as learning commons is a sustainable investment in school improvement and learning to learn today and into the future. The development of national standards is raising the profile of school libraries in Canada and providing new opportunities for inclusion in school growth plans. Leading Learning: Standards of Practice for School Library Learning Commons is a practical tool to inspire transition journeys and to ensure success.

References Alberta Education. 2014. “Learning Commons Policy.” http://education.alberta.ca/department/ ipr/slsi..aspx. Accessed on 27 January 2015. Asselin, Marlene, Jennifer Branch and Dianne Oberg, eds. 2003. Achieving Information Literacy: Standards for School Library Programs in Canada. Ottawa: Canadian Association for



3 Developing National Standards for School Libraries in Canada 

 39

School Libraries. http://www.clatoolbox.ca/casl/slic/ail110217.pdf. Accessed on 18 February 2015. Canadian Library Association. 2014. Leading Learning: Standards of Practice For School Library Learning Commons In Canada. Ottawa: CLA. http://clatoolbox.ca/casl/slic/llsop.pdf Accessed on 13 December 2014. Canadian Library Association and Voices for School Libraries Network. “Voices for School Libraries Network CLA National Project.” https://sites.google.com/site/nationalslproject/. Accessed on 13 December 2014. IFLA. 1999. IFLA/UNESCO School Library Manifesto. The Hague: IFLA Headquarters. http://www. ifla.org/publications/iflaunesco-school-library-manifesto-1999. Accessed on 30 January 2015. IFLA. 2015. IFLA School Library Guidelines Draft. [Draft dated 12 January 2015.] Koechlin, Carol and Judith Sykes. 2014. “Canadian School Libraries Leading Learning” Synergy 12. http://www.slav.vic.edu.au/synergy/volume-12-number-2-2014.html. Accessed on 13 December 2014. Oberg, Dianne. 2014. “Relentlessly Focused on Learning: The Role of Evaluation.” Paper presented at Treasure Mountain Canada 3, Victoria, British Columbia, 29-31 May. https:// sites.google.com/site/treasuremountaincanada3/advancing-the-learning-community/ oberg. Accessed on 18 February 2015. Ontario School Library Association (OSLA). 2010. Together for Learning: School Libraries and the Emergence of the Learning Commons: A Vision for the 21st Century. Toronto: OSLA. https://www.accessola.org/web/Documents/OLA/Divisions/OSLA/TogetherforLearning. pdf. Accessed on 18 February 2015. The Royal Society of Canada. 2014. “The Future Now: Canada’s Libraries, Archives, and Public Memory.” Ottawa, ON: Walter House. https://rsc-src.ca/sites/default/files/pdf/L%26A_ Report_EN_FINAL_Web.pdf. Accessed on 28 January 2015. Statistics Canada. 2008. “School Libraries – An Under-resourced Resource?” http://www. statcan.gc.ca/pub/81-004-x/2005002/8051-eng.htm. Accessed on 2 March 2015. Sykes, Judith. 2014. “Moving Forward: Implementing and Sustaining the School Library Learning Commons (SLLC) Through Mentoring, Accountability, Research, Community (MARC).” Paper presented at Treasure Mountain Canada 3, Victoria, British Columbia, 29–31 May. https://sites.google.com/site/treasuremountaincanada3/cultivating-effectiveinstructional-design/sykes. Accessed on 3 March 2015.

Further readings Brooks Kirkland, Anita. 2014. “From Hubris to Humility: Welcoming New Standards for School Libraries in Canada.” School Libraries in Canada 32(2): 30–33. http://clatoolbox.ca/casl/ slicv32n2/322brookskirkland.html. Accessed on 13 December 2014. Canadian Library Association. 2014. “School Libraries Advisory Issues Committee.” http:// www.cla.ca/source/members/committeelist.cfm?committee=SLAC&Section=Committees. Accessed on 13 December 2014.

40 

 Carol Koechlin and Judith Sykes

Canadian Library Association. 2014. “A Vision for Canadian School Library Learning Commons.” School Libraries in Canada 32(2). http://clatoolbox.ca/casl/slicv32n2/322cla.html. Accessed on 13 December 2014. Canadian Library Association. 2014. “Voices for School Libraries Network.” http:// www.cla.ca/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Networks1&Template=/CM/HTMLDisplay. cfm&ContentID=12222&FuseFlag=1. Accessed on 13 December 2014. Canadians for 21st Century Learning and Innovation. 2014. “Shifting minds: A 21st Century Vision of Public Education for Canada.” http://www.c21canada.org/. Accessed on 13 December 2014. Gibson, Jo-Anne. 2014. “New National School Library Standards for the 21st century officially launched.” http://www.pembinatrails.ca/Features/2014/June/library.html. Accessed on 13 December 2014. Hay, Lynn. 2014. Blog. http://studentslearn.wordpress.com/2014/06/05/leading-learningstandards-of-practice-for-school-library-learning-commons-in-canada-2014/. Accessed on 13 December 2014. Koechlin, Carol. “TM Canada – Program.” http://tmcanada.pbworks.com/w/page/54170028/ Program. Accessed on 13 December 2014. Koechlin, Carol. “Invitation to TM Canada 2010.” http://tmcanada.pbworks.com/w/ page/22304838/Invitation%20to%20TM%20Canada%202010. Accessed on 13 December 2014. Koechlin, Carol, David Loertscher, and Esther Rosenfeld. 2010. Building A Learning Commons: A Guide For School Administrators and Learning Leadership Teams. Salt Lake City, UT: Hi Willow Research and Publishing. Koechlin, Carol, David Loertscher, and Sandi Zwaan. 2011. The New Learning Commons Where Learners Win: Reinventing School Libraries and Computer Labs, 2nd ed. Salt Lake City, UT: Hi Willow Research and Publishing. Koechlin, Carol and Judith Sykes. 2014. “Transforming School Libraries in Canada: Principles of an Effective School Library Learning Commons.” The Medium Spring, http://ssla.ca/ The%20Medium%20Issue. Accessed on 13 December 2014. Loertscher, David V., Carol Koechlin and Esther Rosenfeld. 2012. The Virtual Learning Commons: Building a Participatory School Learning Community. Salt Lake City, UT: Learning Commons Press. Sykes, Judith. 2013. Conducting Action Research to Evaluate Your School Library. Santa Barbara, CA: Libraries Unlimited.

Mònica Baró, Teresa Mañà and Àlex Cosials

4 Guidelines and Standards for School 4 Libraries in Catalonia, Spain 4 Guidelines and Standards for School Libraries in Catalonia, Spain

Abstract: School libraries were long underdeveloped in Spain. However, under the influence of the 2002 IFLA/UNESCO School Library Guidelines, the situation has significantly improved over the last ten years. Using the example of Catalonia, this chapter sheds light on policy initiatives adopted at both the Spanish and Catalan levels, as well as on their implementation on the ground. After a review of the Spanish political and legal framework in the field of school libraries, we discuss the Catalan programme Puntedu and describe the elaboration of the regional Guidelines and Standards for School Libraries. Keywords: Spain; Catalonia; Puntedu Programme; Role of the school librarian; Local Guidelines

The Political and Legal Framework of Spain Spain is a quasi-federal state made up of 17 regions, called autonomous communities. This political system was established in 1978, with the return of democracy. Although the balance of powers has shifted over time, education and culture were always primarily regional responsibilities in regions such as Catalonia, and these powers have now been handed over to most of the regions. In the educational system, the national government ensures the homogeneity and unity of the educational system, which is regulated by a law establishing a common framework. However, each of the 17 regional governments has exclusive powers in education, under which they can establish their own policies and even legislate on education. The education offered by the education system is divided into different stages: nursery (from 0 to 6 years), primary education (six school years from 6 to 12 years of age), obligatory secondary education (ESO) (four school years from 12 to 16 years of age), high school (from 16 to 18 years of age) and intermediate vocational training, intermediate vocational education in art and design and intermediate sports education (from 16 to 18 years of age). Primary and secondary education is compulsory and free, and can be delivered in state or subsidized private schools. Private schools may apply for government funding to provide these mandatory levels of education. When they obtain such funding, they are referred to as centros concertados, or state-assisted private schools. The percentage of pupils attending state schools is around 68%. Within

42 

 Mònica Baró, Teresa Mañà and Àlex Cosials

the state system, education takes place in two types of schools: nursery and primary schools (CEIP) for the first stages and Institutes of Secondary Education (IES) for the stages of obligatory secondary education, high school and vocational training. State-assisted private schools can offer all these levels of education. Until recently school libraries in Spain were neither organized by law nor supported by policies for creating or developing them. They relied almost exclusively on the individual efforts of proactive and enthusiastic teachers, who believed their school needed a library. As revealed by a 2013 study on school libraries (Miret et al. 2013), four shortcomings characterized school libraries at the time: insufficient resources, lack of services, low usage, and short-lived existence. These libraries were hardly comparable to other European ones and far from the standards promoted by international institutions and organizations such as UNESCO and IFLA. Over the last ten years, however, both the Spanish government and some regional governments have implemented specific policies to promote school libraries. Legislative initiatives such as the 2006 Organic Law on Education (LOE), which was adopted under the socialist government of Jose Luis Rodríguez Zapatero (2004–2011), created, for the first time, a legal framework for school libraries. Article 113 states that “schools will have a school library”, and urges educational authorities to sustain library implementation in state schools. These libraries are directed to pursue two aims: to contribute to the improvement of reading skills and to provide “access to information and other resources for learning in other areas and courses, and for developing the critical use of these tools” (LOE 2006). Since then, the situation of school libraries has improved. Over the years, the Spanish government has dedicated €70 million to this plan, an amount further increased by the financial contribution of some regional governments; several of these governments adopted programmes to establish and develop school libraries, leading to an improved resource allocation. As a result, schools increased and updated their library collections, automated processes and services, renovated furniture and technological infrastructures and even, in some cases, dedicated specific staff to their library. The recent study Las bibliotecas escolares en España. Dinámicas 2005–2011 (Miret et al. 2013) describes the progress made during this period. It includes the involvement of management and of teaching coordination staff, the official recognition and presence of school libraries in centres, the promotion of library activities on the internet (blog, webpages), and the improvement of technological processes. Nevertheless, unlike in neighbouring countries, the figure of the school librarian remains nonexistent. This role is often performed by teachers – as library managers – who dedicate a few hours a week to the library. Some of these



4 Guidelines and Standards for School Libraries in Catalonia, Spain 

 43

managers take specific courses given by regional educational services or universities, but most of them lack any kind of adequate training. It is important to note that school libraries are not addressed at all in the basic training of teachers and many library managers receive no specific training about school libraries. Finally, school libraries are scarcely used for developing curriculum. They are only regarded as tools to improve reading skills and their mission statements do not include diversification of services or information literacy (Miret et al. 2013, 197–201). Over this period, some regions have created coordination focal points to support school libraries. Programmes for improvement have been launched, studies and publications have appeared, and specific training for library managers has been developed. Technical assistance is also available, and specific meetings are organized to allow for contacts between teachers and librarians. All this has undoubtedly facilitated the introduction of a new school library model that is more in tune with today’s educational needs.

School Libraries in Catalonia: The Puntedu Programme Catalonia is one of the regions where regional authorities have decided to go further than state regulation. Catalonia is an autonomous region with seven million inhabitants located in the north-east of Spain, on the shores of the Mediterranean Sea. Autonomous regions have their own government with authority over all areas, including education and culture, within a quasi-federal system headed by the Spanish government, which adopts general laws. The public school system has 1,500 centres, and the private system another 1,200 centres. The public library system includes 404 libraries across Catalonia. The left-leaning regional government (2003–2010) adopted an ambitious development plan, the Puntedu (“dot edu”) Programme, in 2005 to improve Catalan school libraries. This programme was one of seven major programmes of educational innovation in Catalonia. Puntedu pursued three goals: “promoting and consolidating the library as a basic learning tool in the development of all areas; fostering reading habits; and turning the library into a service and a resource for teachers as well as an open space for the whole educational community” (Generalitat 2004). Grants were given on the basis of an open tender, which took territorial balance and the public/private nature of schools into account. Schools had to propose a library project endorsed by educational institutions to regional authorities.

44 

 Mònica Baró, Teresa Mañà and Àlex Cosials

Out of the 2,700 Catalan public schools, 1,062 have joined the programme. These schools, which were selected yearly over a period of three years, also received a symbolic grant from the regional government (on average €2,000), had free access to the library management software developed by the regional ministry, and could apply to a technical training scheme specifically designed for library managers (that was, in fact, open to all teachers who wanted to deepen their knowledge of school libraries). In addition, most schools could devote one half-time teacher for managing the school library, which represented the main part of the programme budget. This programme has also initiated various working groups to prepare reference documents and support material. For instance, the report Mobiliari i biblioteca escolar [Furniture and the school library] (Generalitat 2011) was produced by a group of librarians and architects. It establishes the basic furniture requirements for a school library and gathers numerous suggestions to help schools acquire the needed furniture. Similarly, Esporgar la biblioteca [Weeding the library] (Abeyà Lafontana 2010) helps librarians to weed their collections, reminding them that they should not accumulate outdated books and documents. The webpage La Biblioteca escolar 2.0 (Generalitat 2012) is a third example. It addresses the challenges raised in school libraries by digital tools and resources, as well as by social networks. This webpage, which offers various resources, is meant as a response to questions raised by library managers. Despite the economic crisis, the Puntedu programme has been maintained, although in a different form, with an increased involvement of the Col·legi Oficial de Bibliotecaris-Documentalistes (COBDC), the professional association of Catalan librarians.

Guidelines and Standards for School Libraries in Catalonia In 2009, the regional Education minister of Catalonia set up a committee to determine guidelines and standards for school libraries in order to establish an action plan and to guarantee the durability of the project. This document was aimed at providing schools with parameters for evaluating their own situations and providing ways for improving them. It was also designed to offer tools for planning school libraries more successfully, covering both their creation and everyday functioning. The guidelines were produced by a committee representing the two main groups involved in the matter, that is, teachers and librarians. This committee



4 Guidelines and Standards for School Libraries in Catalonia, Spain 

 45

met for the first time in 2009 and completed its work in 2012. These guidelines were published at the 5th School Libraries Conference in March 2013 (Directrius 2013). Teachers were represented by persons collaborating in the Puntedu programme, as well as by some library managers. Professional librarians were represented by the COBDC, by academic institutions such as the Library Faculty of the Universitat de Barcelona, and by public library services such as the Servei de Biblioteques del Departament de Cultura de la Generalitat de Catalunya and the Gerència de Serveis de Biblioteques de la Diputació de Barcelona. This committee was coordinated by the heads of the Puntedu programme. The COBDC and the Library Faculty have a long tradition of cooperating with those involved in school libraries. Since the 1990s, they have regularly organized conferences on school libraries that have become key events in Catalonia. They have also significantly contributed to the improvement and promotion of library services and their vitality. They contributed to the dissemination of the 2002 IFLA/UNESCO School Library Guidelines, which they translated into Catalan and published as a booklet. Other examples of Catalan translations of IFLA documents are the Guidelines for Easy-to-read Materials (in 1999) re-edited in 2012; The Public Library Service: the IFLA/UNESCO Guidelines for Development (in 2002) re-edited also in 2013 after the publication of the IFLA Public Library Service Guidelines; the Guidelines for Digitization Projects (in 2006); The IFLA Internet Manifesto (in 2006); Guidelines for Library Services to Babies and Toddlers (in 2008); Guidelines on Information Literacy for Lifelong Learning (in 2009); IFLA Digital Reference Guidelines (in 2011); and the Guidelines for Libraries of Government Departments (in 2012). In the domain of school libraries, the COBDC translated the IFLA/UNESCO School Library Manifesto in 1999 and printed the 2002 IFLA/UNESCO School Library Guidelines in 2005, in collaboration with the Catalan Education Ministry. These two documents served as the starting point for producing the Directrius i estàndards per a les biblioteques dels centres educatius de Catalunya [Guidelines and standards for school libraries in Catalonia]. As shown in this chapter, the Catalan Guidelines were largely inspired by key reference texts from IFLA, especially the 2002 IFLA/UNESCO School Library Guidelines. The Catalan Guidelines update some general aspects of IFLA’s guidelines and adapt them to the Catalan context in which regional authorities are responsible for deciding on matters related to the management of educational centres without the involvement of local authorities or institutional support from public libraries. These guidelines also establish a model for a school library network and outline the role of the various regional agents therein. However, despite these achievements, the lack of specific regulations on school libraries prevents the development of a cogent framework beyond the LOE.

46 

 Mònica Baró, Teresa Mañà and Àlex Cosials

The Catalan guidelines support the updated IFLA recommendations, as shown by this comparison with the 2015 IFLA School Library Guidelines Draft­ (IFLA 2015). For instance: –– They consider the digital dimension of the library. They insist on the development of both digital collections and a virtual space; –– They detail the role and the missions of library coordinators, and establish their profile and type of dedication to the library. This is crucial because neither the Spanish nor the Catalan law recognizes the need for professional school librarians and support staff; –– They discuss the competences and the role of library committees, which are made up of teachers from different educational areas and levels, as well as the coordinator of the school technological area; –– They insist on the importance of assessment, and they recommend bringing together a basic repository of data and indicators on the resources, uses and costs of the library so that each library can assess its own situation. A more thorough assessment protocol, which is specifically designed for school libraries, is available online (Miret et al. 2011). However, the Catalan guidelines also diverge from the 2015 IFLA School Library Guidelines Draft: –– They do not insist on aspects related to informational competences, which are briefly mentioned in the section on services. They mention the need to establish programmes to support learning and the development of the curriculum, but they only refer in general terms to training in the use of the library and its resources; –– They include quality standards applicable to the sections on collections, services, spaces and staff. These are crucial to the administration for planning the setting-up and equipping of libraries from the beginning, in order to ensure the quality of library services. These parameters are also useful to the centres themselves because they help them to determine their own situations and to plan actions for improving them; –– They do not include examples of good practices to support library managers in their jobs. However, the Puntedu programme offers a website which gathers successful experiences and innovative practices. The shortcoming of library resources and services is mostly related to the non-existence of librarians in Spanish schools, which impedes the elaboration and the execution of more complex programmes. Therefore, considering the importance given to these issues in the new guidelines, this section of the Catalan Guidelines



4 Guidelines and Standards for School Libraries in Catalonia, Spain 

 47

should be revised to strengthen the role of school libraries in education in the 21st century.

Conclusions and Recommendations The improvement of school libraries in Catalonia between 2005 and 2010 is directly related to the increase in public funding, and also to the development of support programs that not only provide more resources to libraries but also involve investment in training teachers and in designing tools for implementing and developing school libraries. Amongst these tools, it is important to emphasise the regional Guidelines and Standards for School Libraries, which are especially relevant in a country where each new government may change the education laws and authority is divided across levels of power. This makes long-term policies particularly difficult to implement, thus impacting directly on the development of school libraries. These programme documents are even more important in times of economic crisis, which can see some of the advances made in recent years reversed. Indeed, the economic crisis has led to a decrease in resources dedicated to education over the last ten years, especially in the field of school libraries. This has had an impact on the implementation of the guidelines, including a decrease in both the functions and the budget of the Puntedu Programme, thus impeding any further development of the Guidelines in Catalan schools. As seen above, many aspects of the Catalan Guidelines echo the 2015 IFLA School Library Guidelines Draft. Both documents insist on the need to adapt school libraries to the new digital context, both in terms of resources and services, and stress the importance of assessment as a means to improve school libraries and to justify investment in them. However, the Catalan Guidelines also have crucial shortcomings. First, although the guidelines insist on the need of a skilled staff and establish time dedication in relation to the size of each school, they do not guarantee the presence of school librarians (that is, full time professionals) in every Catalan school library. Second, issues related to the training dimension of the library should be further developed, particularly in relation to reading and information skills. If schools had a qualified staff with enough time to devote, they could embark on more ambitious programmes and further contribute to educational success. Writing the Catalan Guidelines has offered an opportunity to discuss and reach agreement on how school libraries should be in Catalonia. These guidelines could become a reference for other regional administrations in Spain since

48 

 Mònica Baró, Teresa Mañà and Àlex Cosials

it is the first – and so far the only – document of this nature in the whole country. Its existence should foster continuity in school libraries policies in Catalonia, since they have been drafted with a deep and direct knowledge of the situation and they have been realistically developed with the agreement of the different stakeholders. The drafting, the publication and the diffusion of these guidelines are a first step towards a needed legal framework on school libraries, which should develop the general principles of the Catalan Library Law and the Spanish Education Law. This framework should address some of the current shortcomings, such as the position of the school librarian and the time allocation for the position, or the obligation to dedicate a part of the school budget to the school library. This could also be a chance to move forward in developing a network of school libraries, which would benefit from collective services such as a common catalogue or the purchase of books and electronic resources together.

References Abeyà Lafontana, Mercè, Montserrat Gabarró Parera, Àngels Rius Bou and Aurora Vall Casas. 2010. Esporgar la biblioteca a l’escola i l’institut : triar i destriar, procesos per a una gestió eficient del fons. [Weeding the library in primary and secondary schools: Choose and discern processes for an eficient collection management]. Barcelona: Departament d’Ensenyament. http://www.xtec.cat/alfresco/d/d/workspace/SpacesStore/b86cc0febf6b-4081-a8b8-a6a234931f14/esporgar.pdf. Accessed on 10 November 2014. Directrius i estàndards per a les biblioteques dels centre educatius de Catalunya [Guidelines and standards for educational centres libraries in Catalonia]. 2013. Barcelona: Departament d’Ensenyament. http://www.xtec.cat/alfresco/d/d/workspace/ SpacesStore/38547944-4b4c-4f90-b364-ad81076f48fd/directrius_biblio_centres.pdf. Accessed on 10 November 2014. Generalitat de Catalunya. Departament d’Ensenyament. 2004. Programa de biblioteca escolar Puntedu [Puntedu school library program]. http://www.xtec.cat/web/projectes/biblioteca. Accessed on 10 November 2014. Generalitat de Catalunya. Departament d’Ensenyament. 2011. Mobiliari Biblioteca Escolar [School library furniture]. https://docs.google.com/file/d/0BxxF-lL4fGyMnczaUgxQ3ZSSnl6aVh4Y2tOV0pyZw/edit?pli=1. Accessed on 10 November 2014. Generalitat de Catalunya. Departament d’Ensenyament. 2012. La biblioteca escolar 2.0 [The school library 2.0]. https://sites.google.com/a/xtec.cat/biblioteca-escolar-2-0/ . Accessed on 10 November 2014. IFLA. 2015. IFLA School Library Guidelines Draft. [Draft dated 12 January 2015.] LOE. 2006. Ley Orgánica 2/2006, de 3 de mayo, de Educación (LOE). 2006. Boletín Oficial del Estado, núm. 106, 4 de mayo de 2006. http://www.boe.es/boe/dias/2006/05/04/pdfs/ A17158-17207.pdf. Accessed on 18 February 2015.



4 Guidelines and Standards for School Libraries in Catalonia, Spain 

 49

Miret, Inés, Mónica Baró, Teresa Mañá and Inmaculada Vellosillo. 2011. Bibliotecas escolares ¿entre interrogantes?: herramienta de autoevaluación: preguntas e indicadores para mejorar la biblioteca [Questioning school libraries: Self-assessment tool: Queries and Indicators to Improve the Library]. Madrid: Fundación Germán Sánchez Ruipérez. http:// www.lecturalab.org/uploads/website/docs/2684-2-Bibliotecas_escolares_entre_ interrogantes.pdf. Accessed on 10 November 2014. Miret, Inés, Mónica Baró, Teresa Mañá and Inmaculada Vellosillo. 2013. Las bibliotecas escolares en España. Dinámicas 2005–2011. [School libraries in Spain: Dynamics 2005–2011]. Madrid: Ministerio de Educación, Cultura y Deporte; Fundación Germán Sánchez Ruipérez. http://leer.es/documents/235507/253223/estudio.pdf/. Accessed on 18 February 2015.

Bogumiła Staniów

5 Standards for School Libraries in Poland Are They Working? 5 Standards for School Libraries in Poland Abstract: In Poland in 2010, Standardy pracy biblioteki szkolnej [Standards for School Library Work] were prepared by a group of school librarians and members of teacher and librarian associations and published in the library press. The standards defined the optimal conditions of the school library. The author analysed if and how the standards had influenced the development of school librarianship, using two types of sources: the library press in the years 2010–2014 and an online survey of the presidents of the 21 regional departments of the Association of Polish Schools’ Teachers Librarians (TNBSP). The purpose of the analysis was to reveal if the effort of professional circles of teacher librarians to create and publish the standards spurred the development of school libraries. The analysis showed that standards were discussed in the library press to a small extent. Some teacher librarians claimed that the standards were not widely known, while others stressed that the standards were not obligatory and thus not taken into account. Overall, it appears that the school library standards are important only for librarians: they confirm the role of the library but they are not mandatory. The results show that the standards need to be promoted among librarians, teachers, head teachers and parents. Keywords: Poland; Impact of standards; National school library standards; School library guidelines; Role of the school librarian; Advocacy.

Introduction In Poland in the 1980s and 1990s, there were employment regulations in force that were formulated by the Ministerstwo Edukacji Narodowej [Ministry of National Education] (MEN). The 1983 ministerial document, “Programme of work of school library” (Ministerstwo Oświaty i Wychowania 1983), regulated in detail the rights and duties of teacher librarians, subject teachers and head teachers with regard to school libraries, as well as any possible activities undertaken by school libraries. The Directive by MEN of 4 June 1997 (Ministerstwo Edukacji Narodowej 1997) defined the number of full-time teacher librarians in state schools with respect to the number of number of students and teachers, as well as the sizes of collections and facilities. These regulations were mandatory, and the Ministry financed



5 Standards for School Libraries in Poland 

 51

their implementation in schools. Then, on 1 January 1999, the regulation defining the number of full-time teacher librarians was abandoned, and the local governments financing schools started to decide on the number of employees. Thus, school libraries became dependent on local educational authorities. Today, the budget of school libraries as well as library housing conditions and equipment are all at the discretion of the head teachers.

Need for the Development of School Library Standards Once the mandatory regulations related to school libraries and school librarians ceased to be in force, teacher librarians noticed that there was a need for new standards of work in school libraries. Local initiatives to develop new standards began, spurred by the translation of the international documents, the IFLA/ UNESCO School Library Manifesto (1999, 2002), and then the IFLA/UNESCO School Library Guidelines (Sætre and Willars 2002, 2003). For example, a document on employment standards for school librarians was prepared by Towarzystwo Nauczycieli Bibliotekarzy Szkół Polskich [Association of Polish Schools’ Teachers Librarians (TNBSP)] in November 2000. In 2010, after several months of intensive teamwork and numerous consultations with some librarians’ circles, a group of teacher librarians and members of library associations, namely, the Polish Teachers’ Union (ZNP), the Association of Polish Schools’ Teachers Librarians, and the Polish Librarians Association (SBP) created “Standards of Work for School Libraries”. The standards – “Standardy pracy biblioteki szkolnej” – were published in library journals (2010) and appeared in the appendix to the handbook for teacher librarians, Biblioteka szkolna dzisiaj [The School Library Today] (Staniów, 2012, 243–246), but they have never been published as a separate standalone document, that is, as a booklet.

School Librarians and School Libraries in Poland In Poland, school librarians must have a university degree: a Bachelor of Arts if they work in primary schools, or a Master’s degree in library and information science (LIS) if they work in junior high schools or secondary schools. They also must have a pedagogical course or must complete special postgraduate studies

52 

 Bogumiła Staniów

in pedagogy. School librarians who are employed on a full-time basis work 30 hours per week, but there are many part-time school librarians working only a few hours per week. Part time school librarians are mostly teachers who teach different subjects in the same school. However, each teacher who begins work in a school library without librarian qualifications is obligated to register in postgraduate studies in LIS (3 semesters). In 2012, there was an average of 1.1 librarians in schools for children and youth: this was because generally there was more than one part-time librarian working in each school. On average, each school library was staffed on a ¾ time basis (about 22 hours per week); this means that school libraries were not open for all the hours in which schools were open. These statistics reflect the situation in schools that have libraries; not all schools in Poland have a library or guaranteed access to a library. In Poland, in the school year 2012/2013, the total number of schools (including adult education schools) was 34,270. There were libraries in 20,363 schools (59.4%); there was guaranteed access to libraries in 7,975 schools (23.3%); and 5,932 schools (17.3%) possessed no library and gave no access to a library. Almost every tenth junior high school and every ninth high school had neither a library nor access to a library. There were libraries in nearly 60% of schools in Poland, but their situation varied. Students in towns were in a relatively good situation, but libraries in villages were much smaller and more poorly equipped, both with books and media. In cities and in the country, students find it more difficult to make use of library facilities. In 2012, there were altogether 19,713 school libraries: 12,012 in primary schools, 4,276 in junior high schools, 1,526 in high schools and 1,326 in secondary technical schools. The floor area of libraries varied and depended on the type of school and the environment in which it functioned (Biblioteki w Polsce 2014). On average, a school library occupied 1.3 of a room (with no changes in comparison with the year 2010) and the average floor area of a school library across the whole country was 51.6 square metres (it decreased by 1.5 square metres in comparison with the year 2010). Library housing conditions worsened a little in the course of two years. Libraries in Polish schools were not big enough to meet the numerous and various requirements imposed on them by the core curriculum of general education for all school levels which states: The crucial role of primary schools is to prepare students to live in the information society. Teachers should provide students with opportunities to acquire skills of searching, organizing and using information from various sources by means of information and communication technologies during classes of different types. A well-equipped school library, having



5 Standards for School Libraries in Poland 

 53

at its disposal up-to-date collections both in the form of books and multimedia resources should be a backup of the said tasks. Teachers of all subjects should resort to school library resources and cooperate with teacher librarians so as to make students comprehensively prepared for self-education, conscious searching and using information (Ministerstwo Edukacji Narodowej 2008).

Teacher librarians made great endeavours to have these words included in the core curriculum, which is a mandatory document for all subject teachers. In order to accomplish these tasks, teacher librarians do their best to create the best conditions for students in their libraries. They try to provide enough space, they make room for lending and reading in their libraries, and they often enable students themselves to have open access to bookshelves. However, school libraries in the country face more problems in this respect. In almost all types of country schools, the average number of rooms and the average floor area were below the average ones of the school libraries over the rest of Poland. Rural high schools and secondary technical schools were an exception to this, but they too had worse housing conditions in comparison to their urban counterparts. Moreover, one may notice a general tendency of worse housing conditions for school libraries in primary and junior high schools. High schools and secondary technical schools possessed much better library facilities for meeting the requirements of the curriculum for school libraries. The average size of book collections in school libraries in Poland was 7,634 books. In cities, a school library had in its stock an average of 10,516 books and in the country, 5,010 books. Book and magazine collections were smaller in junior high schools, primary schools and basic vocational schools in the country when compared to those in towns and cities. The statistics show that collections of school libraries increase systematically each year. However, the quality of them should not be over-estimated since the ostensible growth is frequently a result of the lack of systematic de-selection. The situation is caused by pragmatic reasons. School administrators point out that it is the size of the library collection that determines the basis of employment of a teacher librarian. Thus, both head teachers and teacher librarians are not interested in the reduction of book collections. Also, books that are withdrawn often cannot be replaced with new ones, as the financial resources for their purchase are extremely limited. So far, there has been no programme on the national level that would support the purchase of books for school libraries (Biblioteki w Polsce 2014). The budgets of school libraries are modest, and the collections are often made up of voluntary contributions from parents and resources obtained from sponsors and publishing houses that are willing to assist schools in this respect. As of December 2014 the needs of school libraries are included in the National Programme of Readership Growth proposed by the Ministry of Culture and National Heritage, which will

54 

 Bogumiła Staniów

provide them about 3 million złoty (over €700,000) for new titles. Also, the Ministry of Education has just announced that they will spend 15 million złoty (over €3,500,000) on this programme to support school libraries. In school libraries in Poland, there are more and more materials available in electronic media. In 2010 on average there were 49 units of such collections per school library, while in 2012 the number was 61. In 2012 an average school library was equipped with three computers. In the years 2004–2006 in Poland there was a project called “Internet Multimedia Information Centres in School and Pedagogical Libraries”. Its aim was to improve the quality of teaching by means of modern educational techniques. About 15,000 school libraries were provided with computers. However, now in comparison with the year 2010, the computerization of libraries has slowed down. To sum up, the situation of Polish school libraries varies in many respects: –– access to school libraries for students in different school types – every tenth junior high school and every eighth high school has neither a school library nor any access to it; –– housing conditions in school libraries in the rural and urban areas – the situation is much worse in the former; –– collection sizes of school libraries – libraries in primary schools and junior high schools face more problems in this respect; –– computerization – school libraries in the rural areas are less well-equipped with computers. Professional circles of teacher librarians demand that the situation of school libraries should be improved, and they stress that it is essential to: –– define a model of a school library according to the standards by determining crucial aspects of its activities with the help of a thorough quality analysis of libraries’ work and taking into account the scope of financing, access to new technologies and employment of librarians; –– interest the Ministry of National Education (MEN) in the initiative to modernize school libraries in accordance with changing trends (e.g., accessibility of e-collections, improvement of IT competencies, diminishing of interest in books and printed word from the digital generation); –– increase the accessibility of school libraries through the reduction of additional duties imposed on teacher librarians (replacements, break supervisions); –– involve teacher librarians in the process of acquiring IT competencies by students according to the core curriculum; and –– keep up to date with the changing reading needs of students of all school types all over Poland. (Biblioteki w Polsce 2014, 27–43)



5 Standards for School Libraries in Poland 

 55

The needs identified by professional teacher librarians are compatible with the “Standardy pracy biblioteki szkolnej” [Standards of School Library Work] (2010) that define the optimal condition of a school library and formulate requirements in the following fields: I. Conditions fulfilled to be a school centre of education and information. II. Developing, preparing and making collections and information available. Records and library documentation. III. Teacher librarians running school libraries who are full-time qualified employees. IV. Library participation in school instructional and educational activities V. School library promotion within school and outside. In addition to the standards, the Association of Polish Schools’ Teachers Librarians prepared a “List of duties and activities of teacher librarians in school libraries”, which provides precise indicators of the role and tasks of teacher librarians (Staniów 2012, 250–255). The roles and tasks are organized in 11 groups: I. Library structure organization (development plan, budget, premises, equipment and facilities). II. Collection development (structure construction, selection). III. Collection records. IV. Collections compilation (formal and factual, technical compilation). V. Collection availability. VI. Collection inventory. VII. Pedagogical work (including running classes on reading and media education, assisting subject teachers in running classes in libraries, organizing various events and forms of activities to promote reading, educating parents). VIII. Informative, bibliographic, promotional and publishing activities. IX. Teacher librarians’ skills and tools, self-education. X. Cooperation with cultural and educational institutions, media, libraries, community councils and parent boards. XI. Other activities and tasks of teacher librarians (e.g., raising non-budgetary financial resources, guidance for teachers attaining promotion in rank, performing other additional tasks in schools).

Examining the Impact of the Standards To address the impact of the 2010 standards, two types of sources were used:

56 

 Bogumiła Staniów

1. The library press in the years 2010–2014 (two titles of professional monthly periodicals: Biblioteka w Szkole [The Library in School] and Poradnik Bibliotekarza [Librarian’s Guidebook]. The author has analysed some articles published after the standards had been introduced so as to check to what extent their authors referred to them. 2. Answers to the survey sent to the heads of 21 regional departments of TNBSP which was carried out online and contained the following questions on the standards for school libraries: –– are they well-known and accessible to Polish school librarians? If not, why? –– are they well-known to educational authorities and respected in activities relating to school libraries? –– have they ever helped to resolve any difficult issue? What was it? –– do they help to improve the quality of work in school libraries? If not, why? The results of the survey verified the data that was gained from the articles in the journals. The heads of the regional departments of TNBSP contacted all the teacher librarians in their region and asked them to give insights into typical problems of libraries. To evaluate if the standards have had any impact on the condition of school libraries, the author examined data related to the years 2010–2014, four years after the completion of the standards. The analysis was intended to reveal whether the effort of professional circles of teacher librarians to create and publish the standards had any impact on the development of school libraries. Both the awareness of the standards and the methods to make use of them by professionals were evaluated in this study; this problem had not been examined in Poland previously. It was crucial to find out if teacher librarians resort to the standards while solving current problems, negotiating with head teachers, parent boards, or sponsors and, above all, if the standards are respected by educational authorities. The analysis was conducted to answer the question: Are the standards alive and in use, or are they just dead words published a few years ago? The survey of websites and web portals for librarians carried out by the author on 1 September 2014 showed that none of them had published the standards on their websites, including TNBSP (http://tnbsp.oeiizk.waw.pl/) and Biblioteka w Szkole (http://www.bibliotekawszkole.pl).1 This raises the question of whether and to what extent the teacher librarians know the standards and use them in their work. 1 Websites accessed on 19 February 2015.



5 Standards for School Libraries in Poland 

 57

The articles published in the library press referred to the standards to a minimal extent. Neither Poradnik Bibliotekarza nor Biblioteka w Szkole, which are the most important methodological magazines for teacher librarians in Poland, have discussed this subject. Some articles mentioned the fact that the standards exist (Brzezińska 2014), but no one attempted to examine if and to what degree the formulation of “Standardy pracy biblioteki szkolnej” [Standards for School Library Work] has had any effect on the functioning of school libraries. The author then expanded her study and searched two additional magazines, this time ranked scientific journals in the field of library science in Poland: the quarterly Przegląd Biblioteczny [The Library Review] and the yearbook Roczniki Biblioteczne [Library Annals]. The analysis of the library press for the years 2010–2014 confirmed that school libraries are very seldom studied in Poland: no article published during that timeframe discussed the problematic aspects of school library science. This is mostly due to the small number of people who deal with issues concerning school libraries in Poland. Another reason for the situation is the questionable legal status of school libraries, which has its roots in the vague provisions of the 1991 Act on the educational system: unfortunately, the Act did not oblige schools to operate libraries. As a consequence, Polish school libraries have been under threat for several years; there have been mergers of school libraries with public libraries, even in cities. Various reasons have been given for the mergers such as broader offerings, better accessibility and longer open hours, but the true reasons are to make public libraries leave the premises (often attractive ones in cities), moving their collections to schools, reducing the number of full-time librarians, and cutting down on purchases and library facilities. Pedagogical qualifications and skills of the teacher librarians and the needs of adult readers, especially seniors, who are not pleased with the changes, are not taken into account. The standards mattered much more during the campaign organized by librarians’ circles when school libraries were in real danger. In 2013 the authorities (on the proposal of the Polish Union of Municipalities) intended to amend the school law and thus make it legal to merge school libraries with public ones, which would hinder the instructional process and be against global trends in school library science. More than 55,000 citizens supported the protest, which finally saved libraries. In the “STOP School Libraries Liquidation” campaign, the standards were often referred to and their connections with the international documents were stressed. Most teacher librarians claim that the “Standardy pracy biblioteki szkolnej” [Standards for School Library Work] have a slight impact on everyday functioning of libraries. The online survey of the heads of TNBSP and the librarians from their departments proved that the awareness level of the standards among librarians

58 

 Bogumiła Staniów

is varied. Some of them said that after the initial euphoria over the document formulation, they have become quite skeptical, and the standards are referred to less and less often. This is because the standards are not obligatory; because they are merely the “wishful thinking” of librarians’ circles, they are not taken into account. In some departments, however, the standards have been intensely discussed several times and are very well known. One of the heads of TNBSP pointed out that the document had contributed to legitimizing the position and functioning of school libraries in school statutes. This legal standardization does a lot of good for school libraries and librarians as well as communities. In the absence of more general work programmes or more detailed regulations, it is school statutes that determine numerous issues regarding school libraries and it is in the interest of librarians to ensure that these provisions define clearly the functions and tasks of libraries as well as conditions necessary for their functioning. Respondents pointed out that the development level and conditions of school library functioning are not considered in the evaluation of school activity. With the continuous financial problems of the educational system, there are no incentives to invest in libraries. No fixed budgets are allocated to school libraries. Instead, this is a sphere where head teachers can try to make budgetary savings, claiming that “after all libraries are full of books” or “nowadays everything is on the internet”. It seems unimportant whether teacher librarians’ posts are taken up by highly qualified employees: instead, there is work-sharing where the library is staffed by various teachers who lack a few teaching hours to complete their contractual teaching load. The fact that teaching results are closely connected to the condition of school libraries is still underestimated, although this correspondence has been demonstrated by numerous research studies (IFLA 2015, Sections 1.3, 3.3). Librarians stress that there is no need to reach for standards that do not oblige anyone to do anything, and that the standards are after all only recommendations. The document is not binding on anyone, neither on MEN nor on any school authorities. What counts now to the decision-makers is the economic results, not the substantive educational ones. Repeated attempts to have the standards approved by MEN have failed so far. According to librarians, the standards do not translate into any real and specific acts of local authorities. Current issues and pressing needs are always of greater importance. Continuous shortage of funds and full-time employment limitations have had an adverse influence on school libraries. “Standardy pracy biblioteki szkolnej” [Standards for School Library Work] needs to be supported by a directive and guidelines of the Minister of Education, indicating clearly the crucial role of school libraries in the process



5 Standards for School Libraries in Poland 

 59

of education. This is a precondition for making school authorities comply with the standards. In some parts of Poland “Standardy pracy biblioteki szkolnej” [Standards for School Library Work] has served to create quality standards for school functioning. At present, they are a starting point for planning and organizing work in school libraries. They are referred to when preparing regulations, work schedules and programmes. But, no one was able to report a situation where the standards helped to resolve a difficult or disputable matter. Respondents underlined that the standards certainly improve the quality of work in school libraries in Poland. They are a point of reference to many librarians, an ideal model they would like to follow, and a resource that they resort to when they need. However, the standards seem to be important only to librarians; the standards provide psychological support because they confirm the role and mission of the school library but unfortunately the standards oblige no one. Respondents expressed the belief that what counts most is teacher librarians themselves – their commitment, prestige, position in school, and recognition gained among workmates, head teachers and teachers. This is essential if they are to be considered as partners in the educational process and as experts on modern teaching tools and technologies (IFLA 2015, Sections 3.2–3.4).

Results of the Study The results of the analysis of data from the library press and the online survey show that the standards are not well-known and that their usage is very limited in Poland. In summary, the research revealed the following: 1. The new school library standards are not widely known among school librarians. They are not adequately displayed on the websites of school libraries and educational institutions. (However, on the web portal of Biblioteka w Szkole one can buy them online for 2 złoty [about €0.50] as an archival article). 2. The authors of articles on school library science, while discussing various themes regarding functions and conditions of library functioning, do not refer directly to the standards. 3. Cases where the standards turned out to resolve any specific problems connected with the functioning of a school library are extremely rare. 4. The standards are not mandatory and serve only as guidelines; they have not been formally approved by the Ministry of Education (MEN). The standards show a desirable or ideal state, but they have had almost no effect on the situation in the schools.

60 

 Bogumiła Staniów

5. It is not enough to compile and publish the standards. They must be publicised, promoted and updated to the current situation. It is worth celebrating those libraries that meet the standards, or even surpass them, so as to spur others to do the same, but this should always be done with reference to the standards. 6. Promotion of the standards among the whole educational circle is a truly important and pressing matter. The primary objective should be to induce appropriate school authorities to approve the standards as at least a recommended document to be implemented by school head teachers. 7. Assistance in organizing and managing school libraries is a duty of pedagogical libraries (in Poland, these are separate libraries of a public character and accessible to teachers of all educational institution types and schools). Since 2013, pursuant to the Regulation of the Minister of National Education, these types of libraries have been fostering cooperation and creating self-education networks which serve as a forum of practitioners, for teachers who organize themselves to cooperate with one another. Their goal is to enhance their teaching skills, in particular by means of exchanging experiences. It is a perfect opportunity to intensify cooperation of all teachers for the benefit of school libraries (Ministerstwo Edukacji Narodowej 2013). 8. Poland does not have much experience in developing standards. Attempts to formulate some guidelines by librarians’ circles have been made only recently. Before, it was solely MEN’s regulations and legal acts of lower-rank authorities that were followed. 9. There is no Polish research proving a close connection between a well functioning school library and the education level and teaching results. The role of school libraries is underestimated or ignored.

Conclusion Educational authorities in the Ministry of Education and in local governments, teachers, and parents need to be reminded of the school library and of the school library standards. The biggest concern for teacher librarians is the lack of awareness that a quality, functioning library helps students to develop good reading skills and media and information competence. Making use of the knowledge and skills of teacher librarians leads to excellent educational outcomes, developing students’ potential and helping them to gain the skills they need to be able to cope with challenges in their school years and in their adult life. Subject teachers often do not realize this, and they use library resources infrequently. Parents



5 Standards for School Libraries in Poland 

 61

hardly ever try to influence head teachers in relation to the school library and its contributions to student learning. The Ministry of Education does not actively support school library development, and every few years plans appear to liquidate school libraries (mainly proposing mergers with public libraries), or to deprive teacher librarians of the status of educators. These many challenges do not help to improve the situation for school libraries and for the implementation of school library standards. To sum up, the 2010 standards, “Standardy pracy biblioteki szkolnej” [Standards for School Library Work], are not being actively used. They are very important for teacher librarians in Poland, but they are not observed by local school authorities and, unfortunately, not supported by ministerial recommendation. Thus, it is of vital importance to update the standards and publish them again, this time in the form of a booklet. The booklet could be sent to schools of all levels and widely promoted, first of all among head teachers, teachers and parents. It would be worth promoting it among all interested parties: graduates, retired teachers and sponsors. However, the most important and the simplest task is to make an effort immediately to promote the standards by means of web portals directed at teacher librarians.

References Biblioteki w Polsce [Libraries in Poland]. Stan na 2012 r. 2014. Raport przygotowany w Pracowni Bibliotekoznawstwa IKiCz. Oprac. B. Budyńska, M. Jezierska, G. Lewandowicz-Nosal, G. Walczewska-Klimczak. Brzezińska, Danuta. 2014. “Po co komu biblioteka szkolna?” Biblioteka w Szkole 2: 7–8. IFLA. 1999. IFLA/UNESCO School Library Manifesto. The Hague: IFLA Headquarters. http://www. ifla.org/publications/iflaunesco-school-library-manifesto-1999. Accessed on 30 January 2015. IFLA. 2002. IFLA/UNESCO Manifest bibliotek szkolnych. http://archive.ifla.org/VII/s11/pubs/ polish.htm. Accessed on 16 October 2014. IFLA. 2015. IFLA School Library Guidelines Draft. [Draft dated 12 January 2015.] Ministerstwo Edukacji Narodowej. 1997. “ Zarządzenie Ministra Edukacji Narodowej z dnia 4 czerwca 1997 r. w sprawie liczby uczniów, na których przysługuje etat nauczyciela bibliotekarza.” Monitor Polski nr 36 poz. 348. Ministerstwo Edukacji Narodowej. 2008. “Rozporządzenie Ministra Edukacji Narodowej z dnia 23 grudnia 2008 r. w sprawie podstawy programowej wychowania przedszkolnego oraz kształcenia ogólnego w poszczególnych typach szkół.” http://www.men.gov.pl/index. php/2013-08-03-12-12-08/podstawa-programowa. Accessed on 16 October 2014. Ministerstwo Edukacji Narodowej. 2013. “Rozporządzenie Ministra Edukacji Narodowej z dnia z dnia 28 lutego 2013 r. w sprawie szczegółowych zasad działania publicznych bibliotek

62 

 Bogumiła Staniów

pedagogicznych.” http://dziennikustaw.gov.pl/du/2013/369/1. Accessed on 16 October 2014. Ministerstwo Oświaty i Wychowania. 1983. “Program pracy biblioteki szkolnej. Zarządzenie Ministra Oświaty i Wychowania z dn. 13 maja 1983 r. w sprawie programu pracy bibliotek szkolnych w resorcie oświaty i wychowania.” Dziennik Urzędowy MOiW nr 5 poz. 31. Sætre, Tove Pemmer and Glenys Willars. 2002. IFLA/UNESCO School Library Guidelines. The Hague: IFLA Headquarters. IFLA professional Reports, No. 77 [Revised edition of Professional Report No. 20]. http://www.ifla.org/files/assets/hq/publications/ professional-report/77.pdf. Accessed on 17 February 2015. Sætre, Tove Pemmer and Glenys Willars. 2003. Biblioteki szkolne. Wytyczne IFLA/UNESCO. Tłum. E. B. Zybert i M. Kisilowska. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo SBP. “Standardy pracy biblioteki szkolnej” [Standards for School Library Work]. 2010. Biblioteka w Szkole 9: 8–9. Staniów, Bogumiła. 2012. Biblioteka szkolna dzisiaj [The School Library Today]. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo SBP.

Johan Koren

6 Norway’s School Library Development 6 and School Reform 2001–2014 6 Norway’s School Library Development and School Reform 2001–2014

Guidelines by Grants and Lifts Abstract: Norway’s school library development in the first two decades of the 21st century has been funded and guided more by grants and initiatives than by systematic planning as the country’s education system struggled to respond to successive PISA results. The shock of “mediocre” or just average reading results from PISA 2000 led to a turmoil of successive initiatives and “lifts”, beginning with Gi rom for lesing! (GRFL) [Make Room for Reading!], 2003–2007. GRFL was followed by a series of lifts: Kunnskapsløftet [literally The Knowledge Lift, but officially translated as Knowledge Promotion], the new national curriculum and school administration initiative introduced in 2006; Skolebibliotekløftet [literally Lift for School Libraries, or School Library Promotion], 2007–2008; and now Lærerløftet [Lift for School Teachers, or Teacher Promotion], introduced on 30 September 2014. There have been efforts to lift up school libraries, both in GRFL and Skolebibliotekløftet, and in the Norwegian School Library Programme, a development programme administered by The University in Agder for the Norwegian government from 2009–2013. Keywords: Norway; Norwegian School Library Programme; School library development; School library education; University in Agder

Introduction “Norway has the best school system in the world!” claimed then minister of education Bjartmar Gjerde in 1975 (Kjellstadli 2005, citing Hallvard Haga in an undated opinion piece in Aftenposten). It was a confidence born of a lack of data, since there had been no national or international evaluations of the school system to that point. But that changed with the advent of PISA, the Programme for International Student Assessment, in 2000, and PIRLS, the Progress in International Reading Literacy Study, in 2001. In Norway, the result was a turmoil of successive initiatives, beginning with Gi rom for lesing! (GRFL) [Make Room for Reading!], 2003–2007 and followed by a series of programmes, or ‘lifts’: Kunnskapsløftet [literally The Knowledge Lift, but

64 

 Johan Koren

officially translated as Knowledge Promotion], the new national curriculum and school administration initiative introduced in 2006; Skolebibliotekløftet [Lift for School Libraries or School Library Promotion], 2007–2008); and now Lærerløftet [literally Lift for School Teachers or Teacher Promotion], introduced on 30 September 2014. Throughout, there have been efforts to lift up school libraries, both in GRFL and Skolebibliotekløftet, and in the Norwegian School Library Programme, a development programme administered by The University in Agder for the Norwegian government from 2009 to 2013. This chapter traces the evolution of events, noting how PISA results in many ways were crucial drivers of develop­ment (as expressed in the titles of the PISA Norway reports for 2000, 2003, 2006, 2009 and 2012), and the extent to which guidelines for school libraries in Norway were explicitly or implicitly promulgated through project grants financed by these initiatives.

PISA 2000: “Well prepared for the future?” The Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) tests the skills and knowledge of 15-year-olds in reading, mathematics and science every three years, according to OECD PISA’s website. The first iteration came in 2000, and the results to a great extent came as a shock to many in Norway. Kristin Clemet, minister of education at the time the results were published, asserts that they “were surprisingly poor, and many refused to believe what they saw” (Clemet 2012). Indeed, at the press conference where the results were announced on 5 December 2001, Clemet is said to have exclaimed: “Norway is a dunce; it’s now been scientifically proven. This is like coming home from a Winter Olympics without any medals for Norway!” (Sjøberg 2014b). The authors of the Norwegian PISA committee’s report on the 2000 results were more careful in their conclusion, asking: “Are they prepared well enough with L97?” (Lie et al. 2001, 279). L97 had been the national curriculum for grades 1–9 since 1997. Norwegian 15-year-olds’ competencies in the three PISA areas of reading, mathematics and science were characterized as “very average” – the authors were tempted to use the word “mediocre” but carefully and explicitly refrained from doing so—and the results were “for Norway’s part not satisfactory” (Lie et al. 2001, 281). Since this was the first time there had been any national participation in any kind of literacy testing for Norway, there was nothing but Bjartmar Gjerde’s bombastic declaration of Norwegian educational supremacy to compare to the 2000 PISA results.



6 Norway’s School Library Development and School Reform 2001–2014 

 65

The top scorer in the reading test was Finland, with 546, and the lowest of the 32 participating countries was Mexico, at 422, while USA’s reading score was 504, just one less than Norway’s 15-year-olds. Even Sweden had a higher score at 516! The OECD average was 500 (OECD 2000, 5). Throughout this narrative, one should be aware that, though the tests that form part of the PISA battery are administered in one year, the results are not actually published until the following year. Thus, PISA 2000 did not become public knowledge in Norway until 5 December 2001.

First Initiative: Make room for reading! (2003–2007) The political will to act virtually exploded after the PISA 2000 results were revealed. Among the many initiatives that sprang out of this flurry of activity, and the first that is of interest to us with regard to school libraries, was Gi rom for lesing! (GRFL) [Make room for reading!] (2003). GRFL, a strategy for the stimulation of a love of reading and of reading competence, was launched on World Book Day, 23 April 2003, as a five-year plan (Sundt 2005, 15). The Norwegian government explicitly included school libraries, explaining that: The school library has a great potential for promoting competencies in reading and information literacy among students. The school library is both a knowledge arena where various types of information are accessible and a cultural arena where the joy and practice of reading are central. In practice, both functions are often woven together or complement each other. (Gi rom for lesing! 2003).

No large-scale study of the state of Norwegian school libraries was made at this time. An internal government commission on school libraries had been set up in 1978, making its report in October 1980 as Skolebibliotektjenesten [School library service] (NOU 1981, 7), to date the only official Norwegian government statement of any length about school libraries (Rafste 2013). The report provided a useful definition of both the school library and the school librarian: School library is a collective concept for the space, its function and the collections. It is assumed that it includes the school’s total collection of teaching aids—whether in print or non-print—centrally and peripherally located on the school campus, together with the appropriate technology that might be needed for the use of these teaching aids. The school librarian is that person who is responsible for school library service at the individual school. There is currently no legal definition of the title “librarian”. The title

66 

 Johan Koren

must therefore be linked to the function performed, not to the individual’s educational background. (NOU 1981, 7).

But these definitions remained internal definitions for the work of the Commission. No guidelines for school libraries as such were published as part of Gi rom for lesing, either, but that, apparently, was not the intention when the initiative was introduced. According to Ellen Sundt, the project’s leader, You will not find school library development in general as an isolated measure in this plan. Here, the emphasis is on the development that takes place in a school library as a strategy that is woven into several of the measures. It is increased competence in the use of school libraries that is being lifted up here. Students will be learning how to use the school library. (Sundt 2005, 15).

Several resources were published during the project period, however, that appear to have some value as collections of examples. One, for example, was called Hjertebank for et aktivt skolebibliotek [Heartbeats for an active school library] (2003), in which various schools described their school libraries. The publisher, Læringssenteret [the Learning Centre], was a web-based government clearinghouse set up by the Ministry to provide information for quality control in schools (Førsteklasses fra første klasse 2002, Section 4.2.1 The new Learning Centre). Læringssenteret sent a copy of the book to all schools and libraries in the spring of 2003. However, none of these resources appear to have resulted in any discussion on Biblioteknorge [Library Norway], the main Norwegian library listserv, which otherwise can be quite a lively forum for discussion of all things library in Norway. Gi rom for lesing! provided opportunities for the development of education for school librarians and teachers with the creation of a national network for school library professional development. The Agder University College in Kristiansand, soon to become The University in Agder (UiA), had been providing training and development courses for school librarians since 1985 (Romøren 2005, 30), and was joined by Bergen University College as coordinator of the network (Rafste, Sætre and Sundt 2006, 55). Among the prime movers of these developments was Elisabeth Tallaksen Rafste, who had just completed Norway’s first doctoral dissertation on school libraries, “A place to learn or a place for pleasure?” (2001). Rafste’s investigation of two case-study schools indicated “a large gap between the general rhetoric on instruction and school library use and actual practice” (2005, 12) and recommended that teacher education should include library use in the curriculum for pre-service teachers and that pedagogy should be included in instruction for pre-service librarians. Rafste, Romøren and their colleagues, and later Siri Ingvaldsen, built the school library education programme at Agder



6 Norway’s School Library Development and School Reform 2001–2014 

 67

into a centre for school library education, so that it became natural for the School Library Programme (2008–2013) to be located there (Ingvaldsen 2013a). GRFL was termed by its evaluators “an interesting pinnacle within the field of literacy”, combining “the desire of enhancing the pleasure of reading in Norwegian schools” and “a plan of action, giving economical support to concrete efforts and activities in schools and being framed as a national measure” (Buland et al. 2008, English summary). But it came too late for making a difference for Norway’s scores for PISA 2003 and, perhaps, also for PISA 2006, where some “heavy lifting”, that is, some serious and difficult work, appeared to be required.

PISA 2003: “On the right track or way off course?” PISA 2003 came as the first initiative, Gi rom for lesing!, was just getting going. If there were skeptical reactions to PISA 2000, there were none when the 2003 results were published in December 2004. In Sjøberg’s words, “the Truth had been established as an objective scientific axiom: Norwegian schools are mediocre” (2014b). In this iteration, where the OECD average was 494, Norway scored 500 in reading, to the United States’ 495, with Finland still in first place with 544 and Mexico still last, with 385 (Kjærnsli et al. 2004). In other words, there was no real change for Norway, still breaking a little above average. The title of the Norwegian PISA 2003 report posed the question: “On the right track—or way off course?” and suggested that the current national curriculum (L97) lacked clear, concrete learning objectives: Without clear objectives, as we all know, it is impossible to move in the “wrong” direction. However, from the point of view of what students need to learn, so much activity without any goal or meaning can appear arbitrary, if not aimless wandering way off course (Kjærnsli et al. 2004, 257).

The authors explained that when new teaching methods are introduced, there are likely to be somewhat chaotic conditions before the reforms begin to take effect (261). Their statement turned out to be extremely prescient as a radical new national curriculum was about to be introduced. In addition, new lessons were being learned: simply throwing more resources at a problem clearly did not automatically lead to improved results (Clemet 2012).

68 

 Johan Koren

Lift 1: Knowledge Promotion (LK06, 2006) In 2004, the Norwegian government published its proposal for a new national curriculum that was intended to become the knowledge lift for students, Kunnskapsløftet, officially translated into English as Knowledge Promotion. (Kultur for læring 2004). Implementation came two years later in the National Curriculum for Knowledge Promotion in Primary and Secondary Education and Training, known as LK06 (Knowledge Promotion 2007). As with GRFL, the strategy of Kunnskapsløftet was a double-edged sword: 1. [A] radical change in school governance, through increased decentralization of decision-making and responsibilities in the education sector. School owners (school ownership is split in Norway between the municipalities for grades 1–7 and the counties (fylker) for high schools), schools and teachers were intended to gain more autonomy and freedom (Aasen et al. 2012). 2. A new national curriculum (LK06) that emphasised five basic skills in all subject curricula: “the ability to express oneself orally, the ability to read, numeracy, the ability to express oneself in writing, and the ability to use digital tools” (Knowledge Promotion 2007). School libraries receive scant mention in Kunnskapsløftet, despite the fact that literacy and digital tools are central to the function of the school library in the 21st century. At some point, however, the document does state that “An effective school library is essential if the school is to achieve the goals of Knowledge Promotion” (Deildok 2011). Skolebibliotekløftet, the Lift for School Libraries, was designed to step into that breach and promote the school library by raising awareness. Meanwhile, however, a new round of PISA results broke into the activity in December 2007, and this time even school librarians were forced to comment.

PISA 2006: “Time for some heavy lifting” Reading was not one of the central areas of focus in PISA 2006 (to the extent that the USA did not even participate in the reading tests that year). Nevertheless, there was considerable interest in the results from Norway’s perspective, with GRFL in full swing. The results were disappointing: the reading abilities of Norwegian 15-year-olds had apparently become significantly weaker in the course of the three years since PISA 2003. In 2006, 57 countries participated, and South Korea broke Finland’s hegemony at 556, compared to Finland’s 547. Norway had a score of 500 in 2003; in 2006, that had dipped to 484, below the OECD average of



6 Norway’s School Library Development and School Reform 2001–2014 

 69

492. Even Denmark scored higher than Norway, at 494! (Kjærnsli et al. 2007). The Progress in International Reading Literacy Study (PIRLS) in 2006 for 4th graders had on average about the same score as their counterparts in the previous PIRLS study in 2001 (Van Daal et al. 2007). There appeared to be no effect from GRFL. Nevertheless, the Norwegian PISA report asserted that evaluations of the initiative pointed out that, while one of the main goals of GRFL was to strengthen reading competencies, no more than 20% of the local projects that were awarded funding in 2005 and 2006 actually focused on reading competency. Around the same number of funded projects focused on motivating boys to read books in particular, and this was an area that did show some improvement in PISA 2006. Nevertheless, the authors of the Norwegian PISA report were forced to conclude that if there was to be any hope of attaining prime minster candidate Jens Stoltenberg’s promise in the election of fall 2007 that Norway would have “the best school system in the world”, it was time now for some heavy lifting in Norwegian schools (Kjærnsli et al. 2007, 254, 262). Norwegian librarians concurred. Maren Brit Baadshaug, former high-school librarian, reported that “after a period of intense hunting for scapegoats, there seems now to be agreement that schools need a lift that makes a difference” (2007). One lift that was just starting was Skolebibliotekløftet, the lift for school libraries, but unlike Kunnskapsløftet, this was not first and foremost a government initiative.

Skolebibliotekløftet: The Lift for School Libraries (2007–2008) Skolebibliotekløftet, the school library promotion campaign, was part of IFLA’s Campaign for World Libraries, an outgrowth of the American Library Association’s (ALA) @Your Library. The Norwegian Library Association, supported by fifteen other national organizations and Biblioteksentralen, the Norwegian Library Bureau, were prime movers in a national awareness campaign that sought to lift up the role of the school library for politicians nationally and locally (Ingvaldsen 2013b), and thereby to attain a lasting improvement for school libraries in Norway (http://fradittbibliotek.wordpress.com/about/).1 The Norwegian translation of the 2002 IFLA/UNESCO School Library Guidelines (Sætre and Willars 2002, 2007) was sent to all 19 of the country’s counties (fylker), the 428 municipalities and all of the over 400 high schools and close 1 Website accessed on 19 February 2015.

70 

 Johan Koren

to 3,000 elementary/middle schools. The campaign also published a monthly newsletter, which included the award of a bouquet of flowers, Skolebibliotekblomsten [the School Library Corsage] to an institution or an individual with a significant action in support of school libraries. The final recipient of the award was Dr Elisabeth Tallaksen Rafste (http://fradittbibliotek.wordpress.com/2009/01/29/ skolebibliotekl%C3%B8ftets-nyhetsbrev-for-desember-2008/).2 The press conference where Skolebibliotekløftet was launched introduced an essential ingredient for the promotion of Norwegian school libraries that had not previously been present: a report on the state of school libraries in the country, based on a study by the research arm of Volda University College, Møreforsking. In this report, the authors Barstad et al. (2007) analysed the returns from an email questionnaire sent to “all primary and lower and upper secondary level schools in Norway” in the fall of 2006, for a response rate of 51%, representing in all 1,546 schools, plus the data collected from a smaller qualitative interview study. In general, the investigators found that most schools (95% of high schools, 87% for elementary and middle schools) had school libraries or access to public libraries, as required by law and that most of these libraries were valued by administrators, teachers and students. It was in the area of personnel resources that there were clear needs: In upper secondary level, the person in charge of the library normally has the library as his/ her only assignment (at 80% of the upper secondary level schools). Only 18% of the primary and lower secondary level schools find themselves in the same situation. In upper secondary level, close to 60% of the persons in charge of the library are educated as librarians at bachelor level or higher – either as a single standing education (55%) or in combination with pedagogic education (4%). At primary and lower secondary level schools, only 11% have the same level of education. (Barstad et al. 2007, 22)

The call for improved and more systematic education for school librarianship was one of the central goals of Skolebibliotekløftet, together with an emphasis on the need for a national clearinghouse for school library development. That was to be fulfilled for a four-year period, at least, with the Program for skolebibliotekutvikling [Programme for School Library Development, officially translated as the School Library Programme] at The University in Agder (UiA), from 2009 to 2013 (Ingvaldsen 2013a).

2 Website accessed on 19 February 2015.



6 Norway’s School Library Development and School Reform 2001–2014 

 71

The School Library Programme at UiA (2009–2013) The Norwegian government’s argument for the School Library Programme was solidly anchored on the PISA and PIRLS results. In her speech to the library seminar during the literature festival in Lillehammer 28 May 2008, Department of Knowledge Undersecretary Lisbeth Rugdvet had only to mention PISA and PIRLS once and early on, to get the attention of her audience (2008). Her colleague, Øystein Johannesen, went into greater detail on the PISA results in order to provide some context for the coming Programme in his presentation to the 71st Norwegian Library Conference in Bergen in March of that same year (Johannesen 2008). Another motivation was emphasised in Bibliotekreform 2014, a report published in 2006 by ABM-utvikling, the Norwegian Archive, Library and Museum Authority (the government agency responsible for development of archives, libraries and museums from 2003–2010, when library functions were taken over by the National Library of Norway), namely the professional qualifications (kompetanse) required to be a school librarian: School libraries also need a basic lift in the area of professional qualifications. The budget for Kunnskapsløftet includes a considerable allocation for the development of professional qualifications. School libraries will have important responsibilities in the implementation of Kunnskapsløftet. As the proposal for a school library development programme is realized, measures for the development of professional qualifications in school librarianship and how to use the school library should be included in curriculum and lesson plans. (Bibliotekreform 2014 2006, 36)

Administration of the School Library Programme was awarded to UiA in recognition of its more than three decades of providing education for school librarians, from short courses and workshops in 1985 that became a full-blown bachelor’s degree by 2011. Siri Ingvaldsen, who had also worked on Skolebibliotekløftet, became project manager for the Programme (Ingvaldsen 2013a). UiA and Ingvaldsen were charged with five areas of development (Program for skulebibliotekutvikling 2013, 11–12): 1. Administration of development projects: announcement, evaluation of proposals and awarding of funds for projects at the school level, where the school librarian worked in collaboration with teachers to develop reading instruction. 2. Creation of a curriculum development programme for school librarians and teachers as part of further and continuing education within the school library education programme.

72 

 Johan Koren

3. Development of a web-based clearinghouse for information literacy, systematically arranged from 1st grade through high school, with examples from several subject areas. 4. Evaluation of existing regulations with regard to school libraries. 5. Completion of a final evaluation of the Programme in 2014. Development projects (Area 1) focused on reading and information literacy. During the project period, 173 schools participated, with some acting as resource schools in their second year in the Programme (Tåga 2014, 27). The expansion of UiA’s school library education programme to a full bachelor’s degree in 2011 was the programme’s response to the requirements of Area 2, and continuing education offerings were seen as essential, as well (Program for skulebibliotekutvikling 2013, 22–23). The web-based clearinghouse (Area 3) was given the URL http://www. informasjonskompetanse.no with examples of lesson plans mapped to learning standards from LK06, the national curriculum for Kunnskapsløftet. A second clearinghouse for news and information about school library development was created in http://www.skolebibliotek.uia.no/. Both websites are being maintained and updated by UiA through the end of 2015.3 Guidelines for school libraries (the fourth area of development) were not included in the memorandum of agreement with The University in Agder, and this was therefore the responsibility of the national Department of Education. New guidelines have not been issued, however. Nevertheless, it was in the awarding of grants for school library development projects that the School Library Programme could be said in effect to have implicitly provided guidelines for school libraries, as we saw earlier, focusing on the library as a centre for project-based education, information literacy and reading. As the memorandum of agreement between the Directorate for Education and Training (Utdanningsdirektoratet) and UiA stated: “The aim is to develop school libraries from the point of view of their pedagogical role in the teaching of reading. The Programme shall seek to develop models that can be applicable to other school owners and schools” (as reported in Program for skulebibliotekutvikling, 12). As the project period of the Programme was drawing to a close in 2013, an external evaluation (Area 5) was carried out by two researchers from the Nordic Institute for the Study of Innovation, Research and Education. The evaluation concluded that “informants consider implementation, practice and results mainly successful for the work University of Agder has done in the Program for school library development 2009–2013” (Carlsten and Sjaastad 2014, Executive 3 Websites accessed on 19 February 2015.



6 Norway’s School Library Development and School Reform 2001–2014 

 73

Summary, 9). However, concern was expressed regarding the performance goals (Carlsten and Sjaastad 2014, 8): 1. 50 percent of school librarians in primary schools will be trained in school library competence. Goal attainment: No. 2. There shall be an increase in the number of municipalities and schools that have actively implemented the school library in education and that have anchored the school library in its long-term planning to strengthen literacy. Goal attainment: No. 3. There shall be established models of systematic use of school libraries in education. Goal attainment: Partly. Project schools had, indeed, “established models that may be characterized as models although this term has not been used in the implementation of the program” (Carlsten and Sjaastad 2014, 8). Generalization beyond the project schools had not been made, however, and the evaluators noted that “there are neither criteria nor plans for how these models are to be linked to scaling”. Further­more, these authors point to a criticism that was levelled at Kunnskapsløftet itself, much as the authors of the Norwegian PISA 2003 report had done for its predecessor, L97: “national performance goals that the University of Agder is not alone responsible for have been based on an unclear governance strategy and have led to poor goal attainment” (Carlsten and Sjaastad 2014, 8–9). An evaluation of the implementation of the governance reforms in Kunnskapsløftet likewise asserted: “It appears that neither the Ministry of Education and Research, nor the Norwegian Directorate for Education and Training had developed a comprehensive strategy for the implementation of the reform, when it was introduced in 2006” (Aasen et al. 2012, 9). Nevertheless, the Norwegian School Library Programme has been seen as positive. Tåga remarks that the programme made a crucial move by not only expecting but requiring the participation of the school principal in the project planning and implementation: “Enthusiastic principals have been essential both for the development in their own schools, but also for communication about school libraries with other principals and school owners” (2014, 26).

74 

 Johan Koren

PISA 2009: “On the right track” and PISA 2012: “Still some way to go” What of the PISA results from 2009 and 2012, the intervening years as the Programme for School Library Development and Kunnskapsløftet were in full swing? In 2009, the Norwegian PISA committee declared itself “satisfied that the negative trend from 2006 has been turned around” (Kjærnsli and Roe 2010, 238). There were still some challenges ahead, but the Norwegian school system appeared to be on the right track. Norwegian 15-year-olds now scored 503, compared to 484 in 2006 (South Korea and Finland still held the top spots at 539 and 536, respectively, while Sweden had dropped behind to 497, with USA at 500) (Kjærnsli and Roe 2010). Three years later, in 2012, this level seemed to have been maintained, at 504 (Japan now took the lead at 538, while Sweden had dropped further back to 483) (Kjærnsli and Olsen 2013). The Norwegian results were back above the OECD average of 493, as they had been in 2000, 2003 and 2009, with a blip for 2006 (Kjærnsli and Olsen 2013, 20). “Average” is the operable word in this situation— not quite the disaster that Kristin Clemet had bewailed in 2001 when PISA 2000 was revealed. In fact, as Svein Sjøberg pointed out (2014a, English abstract): Norway is one of the clearest examples of how public debates as well as national polices are built on what was labeled the PISA-shock, while, in fact, Norway has consistently scored in the mid-range of the OECD countries in all three subject areas for the five rounds of PISA testing that has been undertaken.

It is interesting to note that the government of current Prime Minister Erna Solberg has chosen to point to the average nature of the results rather than hyping the disappointments in their introduction to the newest lift, Lærerløftet, the Teacher Promotion (2014). While the Teacher Promotion means a considerable change in teacher education in Norway, including transforming the basic qualification for a teacher from a three-year undergraduate degree into a five-year master’s degree, the implications for school libraries and school librarians are not yet clear. Neither of the keywords “skolebibliotek” or “bibliotek” are found in the strategy document that was published on 30 September 2014.



6 Norway’s School Library Development and School Reform 2001–2014 

 75

Conclusion: Listen to the Librarians When Bjartmar Gjerde declared Norway the world’s best school system in 1975, this was apparently possible because “the politicians have avoided listening to advice from the teachers”. Since then, politicians have pretty much stuck by this “recipe for success” (Korsmo 2011). If this is true for teachers, it must be said to be doubly true for school librarians. Both school reform and school library development in Norway appear to have been very much the result of PISA-shock and the “Pisafication” of the Norwegian school system (Sjøberg 2014b). No real guidelines for school library development have been developed beyond the ad hoc guidelines that were the basis for evaluating the school projects in GRFL and Skolebibliotekprogrammet. This is where policy makers could listen more to the school librarians—and school librarians could listen to each other. The American Association of School Librarians’ Empowering Learners (AASL 2009) might serve as a model, as well as the IFLA/UNESCO School Library Guidelines (IFLA 2002; IFLA 2015). More importantly, what might be necessary is some kind of overarching plan for the school library and its role in the education system. The evaluators of Kunnskapsløftet faulted the Ministry of Education and the Norwegian Directorate for Education and Learning for their lack of a “comprehensive strategy for the implementation of the reform” (Aasen et al. 2012, 9). Barstad and his research partners in their survey of the state of Norwegian school librarians noted (2012, 27): In our evaluation we also have considered the effect of having a Plan for the school library. The respondents were asked if a plan for the school library exists. We used the answers to that question to construct an independent variable and tested out the distribution on some of the central factors. This gave us a picture, indicating that the existence of a Plan seems to have effects.

In the same way, Tåga makes a plea for a comprehensive plan (2014, 27): Starting a new Programme for School Library Development should therefore not only be directed toward individual schools, but also look at the role of teacher education, the role of the municipalities and internal collaboration within the municipality. If it does not, this, too, will be nothing more than a flash in the pan.

The author attended Oslo Teacher’s College from 1973–75. During that time, he took one semester course titled Bibliotekstell [literally “care of libraries”], which made it possible for him to take responsibility for a school library in Oslo upon his graduation in 1975. However, Rafste’s recommendations from her 2001 study

76 

 Johan Koren

about inclusion of library use in the curriculum for pre-service teachers has not otherwise been generally followed up in Norwegian teacher education. In the intervening 40 years, Elisabeth Tallaksen Rafste and her successor Siri Ingvaldsen and their colleagues at The University in Agder have built up their school library education programme to a bachelor’s degree. As a result of experience gained in Gi rom for lesing! and recognition gained through Skolebibliotekløftet, the UiA was awarded the School Library Programme by the Norwegian government for a 4-year project period from 2009–2013. Project leader Siri Ingvaldsen emphasised in her paper at IFLA’s conference in Lyon in August 2014 that there is a clear consensus among at least the Norwegian library associations that the programme should be continued (Ingvaldsen 2014). As of this writing, Ingvaldsen has moved on to become director of the regional library in Sogn og Fjordane, while the Solberg government has yet to make any announcement on the continuation of the School Library Programme.

Acknowledgement The author wishes to thank Siri Ingvaldsen for her advice and suggestions in the writing of this chapter.

References Aasen, Petter, Jorunn Møller, Ellen Rye, Eli Ottesen, Tine S. Prøitz and Frøydis Hertzberg. 2012. “Kunnskapsløftet som styringsreform—et løft eller et løfte? Forvaltningsnivåene og institusjonenes rolle i implementeringen av reformen.” [Knowledge promotion as a governance reform: a lift or a promise? The role of levels of administration and institutions in the implementation of the reform.] Report 20/2012. Oslo: The University: Institute for Teacher Education and School Research. American Association of School Librarians (AASL). 2009. Empowering Learners: Guidelines for School Library Programs. Chicago: AASL. Baadshaug, Maren Brit. 2008. “PISA 2006—hva betyr resultatene for skolebibliotekene?” [PISA 2006: What do the results mean for school libraries?] Memorandum by Maren Brit Baadshaug with comments from Liv Evju. Barstad, Johan, Ragnar Audunson, Ellen Hjortsæter and Barbro Østlie. 2007. Skulebibliotek i Norge: Kartlegging av skulebibliotek i grunnskule og vidaregåande opplæring. [School libraries in Norway: Charting school libraries in elementary, middle and high schools.] Arbeidsrapport nr. 204. Volda: Møreforsking.



6 Norway’s School Library Development and School Reform 2001–2014 

 77

Bibliotekreform 2014. 2006. Del 1: Strategier og tiltak. [Library reform 2014. Part 1: Strategies and initiatives]. Oslo: ABM-utvikling. http://urn.nb.no/URN:NBN:no-nb_ digibok_2013022206051. Accessed on 26 February 2015. Buland, Trond, Thomas Dahl, Liv Finbak and Vidar Havn. 2008. “Det er nå det begynner! Sluttrapport fra evalueringen av tiltaksplanen Gi rom for lesing!” [Now it begins! The final report of the evaluation of Gi rom for lesing!] Trondheim: SINTEF and NTNU Adults in lifelong learning, May 2008. Carlsten, Tone Cecilie and Jørgen Sjaastad. 2014. Evaluering av Program for skolebibliotekutvikling 2009–2013. [Evaluation of the Programme for School Library Development 2009–2013]. Report 4/2014. Oslo: NIFU. http://www.udir.no/Upload/ Forskning/2014/NIFUSkolebibliotek.pdf?epslanguage=no. Accessed on 5 November 2014. Clemet, Kristin. 2012. “Kunnskapsløftet” [Knowledge Promotion]. Civita. 13 December 2012. https://www.civita.no/2012/12/13/kunnskapsloftet. Accessed on 5 November 014. Deildok, Monica. 2011. “Skolebiblioteket er ikke prioritert” [School libraries are not being prioritized]. Debate section. Aftenposten 20 October 2011. http://www.aftenposten.no/ meninger/debatt/Skolebiblioteker-er-ikke-prioritert-6486352.html. Accessed on 21 November 2014. “Førsteklasses fra første klasse: Forslag til rammeverk for et nasjonalt kvalitetsvurderingssystem av norsk grunnopplæring” [First class work from 1st grade on; A proposal for a framework for a national system for quality assessment in basic education]. 2002. Section 4.2.1 The new Learning Centre. https://www.regjeringen.no/nb/dokumenter/nou-2002-10/ id145378/?docId=NOU200220020010000DDDEPIS&q=&navchap=1&ch=6. Accessed on 25 February 2015. Gi rom for lesing! Strategi for stimulering av leselyst og leseferdighet 2003–2007. 2003. [Make room for reading! Strategy for the stimulation of joy in reading and reading competency 2003–2007]. Report, 24 April 2003. Department of Education and Research. http://www. regjeringen.no/nb/dokumentarkiv/Regjeringen-Bondevik-II/ufd/Rapporter-og-planer/ Rapporter/2003/gi-rom-for-lesing.html?id=106009. Accessed on 9 November 2014. Hjertebank for et aktivt skolebibliotek [Heartbeats for an active school library]. 2003. Oslo: Læringssenteret. IFLA. 2015. IFLA School Library Guidelines Draft. [Draft dated 12 January 2015.] Ingvaldsen, Siri. 2013a. “The Norwegian School Library Programme.” Scandinavian Public Library Quarterly 46(1). http://slq.nu/?article=volume-46-no-1-2013-3. Accessed on 14 September 2014. Ingvaldsen, Siri. 2013b. “Case study: A School Library Promotion Campaign.” Building Strong Library Associations Case Study Module 7. School libraries on the agenda. IASL-IFLA Joint Workshop Kuala Lumpur. Accessed on November 5, 2014. http:// schoollibrariesontheagenda.files.wordpress.com/2013/07/bsla_iflasl-iasl_norway_case_ study_2013_final.pdf Ingvaldsen, Siri. 2014. “The Norwegian School Library Program – What has been achieved?” Paper presented at IFLA World Library and Information Congress, 16–22 August, Lyon, France. http://library.ifla.org/912/1/213-ingvaldsen-en.pdf. Accessed on 5 November 2014. Johannesen, Øystein. 2008. “Program for skolebibliotekutvikling: Kontekst, tiltak, utfordringer.” [Programme for school library development: Context, initiatives, challenges.] Presentation at the 71st Norwegian Library Conference in Bergen, 7 March

78 

 Johan Koren

2008. http://www.slideshare.net/oysteinj/program-for-skolebibliotekutvikling-bergen07032008-slideshared. Accessed on 22 November 2014. Kjærnsli, Marit, Svein Lie, Rolf Vegar Olsen, Astrid Roe and Are Turmo. 2004. Rett spor eller ville veier? Norske elevers prestasjoner i matematikk, naturfag og lesing i PISA 2003. [On the right track or way off course? Norwegian students’ achievement in mathematics, science and reading in PISA 2003]. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget. http://www.uv.uio.no/ils/forskning/ prosjekt-sider/pisa/publikasjoner/publikasjoner/rett-spor-eller-ville-veier.pdf. Accessed on 19 February 2015. Kjærnsli, Marit, Svein Lie, Rolf Vegar Olsen and Astrid Roe. 2007. Tid for tunge løft: Norske elevers kompetanse i naturfag, lesing of matematikk i PISA 2006. [Time for some heavy lifting: Norwegian students’ achievement in mathematics, science and reading in PISA 2006]. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget, 2007. http://www.uv.uio.no/ils/forskning/ prosjekt-sider/pisa/publikasjoner/publikasjoner/tid_for_tunge_loft.pdf. Accessed on 19 February 2015. Kjærnsli, Marit and Rolf Vegar Olsen, eds. 2013. Fortsatt en vei å gå: Norske elevers kompetanse i matematikk, naturfag og lesing i PISA 2012. [Still some way to go: Norwegian students’ achievement in mathematics, science and reading in PISA 2012]. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget, 2013. http://www.uv.uio.no/ils/forskning/prosjekt-sider/pisa/ publikasjoner/publikasjoner/fortsatt-en-vei-a-ga.pdf. Accessed on 19 February 2015. Kjærnsli, Marit and Astrid Roe, eds. 2010. På rett spor: Norske elevers kompetanse i lesing, matematikk og naturfag i PISA 2009. [On the right track: Norwegian students’ achievement in mathematics, science and reading in PISA 2009]. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget. http:// www.udir.no/Upload/Forskning/Internasjonale_undersokelser/pisa_2009/5/ PISArapporten.pdf. Accessed on 19 February 2015. Kjellstadli, Ole Peder. 2005. “Verdens beste skole—til tross for lærerne.” [The world’s best school system—in spite of the teachers]. Østlendingen 22 March 2005. http://www. ostlendingen.no/arkiv/verdens-beste-skole-til-tross-for-lererne-1.4497713. Accessed on 14 November 2014. Knowledge promotion – Kunnskapsløftet. 2007. Oslo: Utdanningsdirektoratet [Directorate for Education]. Published 4 January 2007. Last edited 7 June 2011. http://www.udir. no/Stottemeny/English/Curriculum-in-English/_english/Knowledge-promotion--Kunnskapsloftet/. Accessed on 14 November 2014. Korsmo, Eli Kristine. 2011. “Gratulerer med dagen!” [Happy World Teachers’ Day!]. Utdanningsforbundet, 4 October 2011. https://www.utdanningsforbundet.no/Hovedmeny/ Om-forbundet/Internasjonalt/Verdens-larerdag-5-oktober/Gratulerer-med-dagen/. Accessed on 23 November 2014. Kultur for læring. [A culture of learning]. 2004. Stortingsmelding nr. 30 (2003–2004). [Parliamentary White Paper no. 30]. Accessed November 14, 2014. https://www. regjeringen.no/nb/dokumenter/stmeld-nr-030-2003-2004-/id404433/. Accessed on 19 February 2015. Lærerløftet: På lag for kunnskapsskolen. [Teacher promotion: Teaming up for the knowledge school.] 2014. Oslo: Kunnskapsdepartementet. http://www.regjeringen.no/upload/KD/ Vedlegg/Planer/KD_StrategiSkole_web.pdf . Accessed on 21 November 2014. Lie, Svein, Marit Kjærnsli, Astrid Roe and Are Turmo. 2001. “Godt rustet for framtida? Norske 15-åringers kompetanse i lesing og realfag i et internasjonalt perspektiv.” [Well prepared for the future? The competencies of Norwegian 15-year olds in reading, science and mathematics in an international perspective]. Acta Didactica 4. http://www.uv.uio.no/ils/



6 Norway’s School Library Development and School Reform 2001–2014 

 79

forskning/prosjekt-sider/pisa/publikasjoner/publikasjoner/godt-rustet-for-framtida.pdf. Accessed on 19 February 2015. Norges offentlige utredninger (NOU). 1981. [Norway’s Government Commission Reports] Skolebibliotektjenesten. [School library services]. 7. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget. http:// www.nb.no/statsmaktene/nb/2bfdb4022162d9c33a02b56cfb888779?index=0#0. Accessed on 21 November 2014. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). 2000. Literacy Skills for the World of Tomorrow: Further Results from PISA 2000. Executive Summary. Paris: OECD. http://www.oecd.org/edu/school/2960581.pdf. Accessed on 5 November 2014. Program for skulebibliotekutvikling 2009–2013. 2013. Sluttrapport. [Programme for School Library Development 2009–2013. Final Report]. Kristiansand: Universitetet i Agder. Rafste, Elisabeth Tallaksen. 2001. “Et sted å lære eller et sted å være? En case-studie av elevers bruk og opplevelse av skolebiblioteket” [A place to learn or a place for pleasure? A case study of students’ use and value of the school library] (doctoral dissertation, Faculty of Education, University of Oslo). Rafste, Elisabeth Tallaksen. 2005. “A place to learn or a place for leisure? Students’ use of the school library in Norway.” School Libraries Worldwide 11(1): 1–16. Rafste Elisabeth Tallaksen. 2013. “Skolebibliotekets historie.” [The history of the school library]. Bibliotekforum 38(5): 28–31. Rafste, Elisabeth Tallaksen, Tove Pemmer Sætre and Ellen Sundt. 2006. “Norwegian policy: Empowering school libraries.” School Libraries Worldwide 12(1): 50–58. Romøren, Rolf. 2005. “Det er håpløst—og vi gir oss ikke. Om skolebibliotekutvikling og skolebibliotekkunnskap i Agderfylkene, 1985–1993.” [It’s hopeless—and we will not give in. Of school library development and school library studies in the Agder counties 1985–1993]. In Kilde til lyst og læring: Jubileumsskrift for skolebibliotekarutdanningen ved Høgskolen i Agder [A source of delight and learning: Festschrift for the school library education programme at Agder University College], ed. by Elisabeth Tallaksen Rafste, Rolf Romøren and Svein Slettan, 29–35. Skriftserien nr. 112e. [Publications no. 112e]. Kristiansand: Agder University College. http://brage.bibsys.no/xmlui/bitstream/ handle/11250/135055/112e.pdf. Accessed on 19 February 2015. Rugtvedt, Lisbeth. 2008. “Pisa-undersøkelsen—bibliotekenes rolle.” [The PISA study and the role of libraries]. Speech at library seminar during Literature festival in Lillehammer, 28 May 2008. http://www.regjeringen.no/nb/dokumentarkiv/stoltenberg-ii/kd/Taler-ogartikler/2008/pisa-undersokelsen--bibliotekenes-rolle-.html?id=514918. Accessed on 22 November 2014. Sætre, Tove Pemmer and Glenys Willars. 2002. IFLA/UNESCO School Library Guidelines. The Hague: IFLA Headquarters. IFLA professional Reports, No. 77 [Revised edition of Professional Report No. 20]. http://www.ifla.org/files/assets/hq/publications/ professional-report/77.pdf. Accessed on 17 February 2015. Sætre, Tove Pemmer and Glenys Willars. 2007. IFLA/UNESCOs Retningslinjer for Skolebibliotek. Oversatt av Maren Brit Baadshaug [Oslo]: Norsk Bibliotekforening. http://www.ifla.org/ files/assets/school-libraries-resource-centers/publications/school-library-guidelines/ school-library-guidelines-no.pdf. Accessed on 19 February 2015. Sjøberg, Svein. 2014a. “PISA-syndromet – Hvordan norsk skolepolitikk blir styrt av OECD.” [The PISA-syndrome: How Norwegian school policy has been steered by the OECD.] Nytt Norsk Tidsskrift 1: 30–43. http://www.hkr.se/PageFiles/47900/S_Sjoberg_Nytt_Norsk_ Tidsskrift_1-2014.pdf. Accessed on 19 February 2015.

80 

 Johan Koren

Sjøberg, Svein. 2014b. “Clemet og pisafiseringen av norsk skole.” [Clemet and the pisafication of Norwegian schools.] Morgenbladet, 11 April. http://morgenbladet.no/debatt/2014/ clemet_og_pisafiseringen_av_norsk_skole. Accessed on 21 November 2014. Sundt, Ellen. 2005. “Øke kompetansen i bruk av skolebibliotek.” [Increased competence in the use of school libraries]. In Kilde til lyst og læring: Jubileumsskrift for skolebibliotekarutdanningen ved Høgskolen i Agder [A source of delight and learning: Festschrift for the school library education programme at Agder University College], ed. by Elisabeth Tallaksen Rafste, Rolf Romøren and Svein Slettan, 15–17. Skriftserien nr. 112e. [Publications no. 112e]. Kristiansand: Agder University College. http://brage.bibsys.no/ xmlui/bitstream/handle/11250/135055/112e.pdf. Accessed on 19 February 2015. Tåga, Aud. 2014. “Program for skolebibliotek—et blaff?” [The Programme for School Libraries— just a flash in the pan?]. Bibliotekforum 39(4): 26–27. Van Daal, Victor, Ragnar Gees Solheim, Nina Nøttaasen Gabrielsen and Anne Charlotte Begnum. 2007. PIRLS: Norske elevers leseinnsats og leseferdigheter: Resulatater for fjerde og femte trinn i den internasjonale studien PIRLS 2006 [PIRLS: The reading achievements and reading competencies of Norwegian students: Results of the fourth and fifth assessment years of the international study PIRLS 2006]. Stavanger: Lesesenteret, University of Stavanger

Part 3 Using Guidelines to Change School Library Part 3 Practice

Jessica Kohout and Karen W. Gavigan

7 The Learning Commons From Planning to Practice in a School System in South Carolina, USA Abstract: This chapter describes the efforts by one school district in the United States to have their schools transition from traditional school libraries to learning commons facilities in order to support the teaching and learning needs of their school community. The process of moving from the initial collaborative planning stages to the implementation of the learning commons model is provided. After presenting a general overview of the process, one middle school’s learning commons is described in detail. Resources and strategies for replicating this model are presented, in an effort to provide school librarians worldwide with the opportunity to replicate the process in their schools. Keywords: United States of America; South Carolina; Learning Commons; Facilities; Collaboration

Introduction Twenty-first-century learners are growing up in a mediasphere that requires new ways of teaching and learning. As multiple literacies evolve, so must the facilities in which they are being taught. “As young people develop their facility with new technologies, geographies, and communicative modes, so too, must their spaces of education grow and expand to accommodate this evolution” (Hill and Vasudevan 2008, 5). The learning commons, the new face of school library facilities, is increasingly playing a major role in this educational evolution in schools in the United States, Canada, and other countries around the world. Sometimes referred to as an “information commons”, the concept of the learning commons originated at Jackson Community College in Michigan (Beagle 2006). During the 1990s, there was a paradigm shift in academic libraries when facilities were being reconfigured to provide access to digital technologies, while maintaining space for group work and tutoring (White, Beatty, and Warren 2010). Information commons began spreading in academic libraries nationwide, largely due to the increasing use of technology in the learning and research process (Accardi, Memo and Kim 2010). Since the inception of the information commons in higher education, these student-centric facilities have begun to appear in K-12 (Kindergarten

84 

 Jessica Kohout and Karen W. Gavigan

to Grade 12) schools, providing collaborative spaces that support the academic needs of all learners. Loertscher, Koechlin, and Rosenfeld (2012) define the K-12 learning commons as a space that is both physical and virtual, and where student learning occurs both independently and in groups through exploration, experimentation, and collaboration. The prevailing theory behind the learning commons movement is constructivism, the belief that learning is a social activity in which learners actively participate in their construction of knowledge. Rather than viewing library spaces as information warehouses where knowledge is stored and disseminated, the constructivist-based learning commons is a place for creating and sharing knowledge. “We need to stop thinking of the library as a grocery store, or a place to “get stuff”, and start thinking of it as a kitchen, a place to “make stuff” (Valenza and Johnson 2009). David Loertscher has been at the helm of the learning commons movement in the United States since 2008. His book, The New Learning Commons: Where Learners Win! Reinventing School Libraries and Computer Labs, co-authored with Carol Koechlin and Sandi Zwaan (2011), is considered a seminal work in the field. Loertscher and Koechlin also maintain a website, The School Learning Commons Knowledge Building Center, which includes presentations and other learning commons resources, as well as an International Registry of School Learning Commons. The site is available at: http://www.schoollearningcommons.info.1 In Canada, two provinces have provided leadership in the learning commons movement. In 2010, the Ontario School Library Association, in partnership with the Ontario Ministry of Education published Together for Learning: School Libraries and the Rise of the Learning Commons (OSLA 2010). Alberta Education lists learning commons as one of their educational initiatives, and provides helpful learning commons resources on their website at https://education.alberta.ca/ department/ipr/slsi.aspx.2 At the international level, the learning commons concept is discussed in the IFLA School Library Guidelines Draft, in Section 4.2 Facilities: Today many school libraries are being designed as “learning commons” in response to users’ involvement in ‘participatory culture,’ which extends the users’ roles from consumers of information to creators of information. Library learning commons provide facilities and equipment needed for creating information products as well as traditional learning and study spaces.

1 Website accessed on 20 February 2015. 2 Website accessed on 20 February 2015.



7 The Learning Commons 

 85

The physical learning commons serves as the hub of the school, and it is a facility that supports 21st-century learning in creative and imaginative ways. The learning commons philosophy is based on a client-centred approach to library facilities, in which the focus is on learning collaboratively. The virtual learning commons provides 24/7 access to print, online, and multimedia resources that support the informational and recreational needs of students beyond the walls of their schools. Learning commons involve the interaction of three knowledge-building dynamics: (1) flexible physical and virtual learning environments; (2) rich information and best technology; and (3) participatory community (Loertscher and Koechlin 2014, E2) . The learning commons environment supports the teaching of both traditional and digital literacies. Words that have been used to describe a learning commons include “open”, “accessible”, “social”, “fluid” and “productive”. A learning commons typically includes presentation areas, printers, scanners, charging stations, and high-speed wireless access. Since flexible physical space is an important characteristic of the learning commons model, computer carts, tables and shelving are on wheels, and data jacks and electrical outlets are readily available. The seating arrangements are diverse and fluid, allowing for more than one class to visit at a time. Whether students are creating book trailers, developing school TV programmes, participating in book and anime clubs, or using 3D printers, a learning commons provides the space to showcase student learning, both on-site and virtually. The roles of a learning commons librarian are many, including information specialist, teacher, instructional partner, programme administrator, and technology leader. When advising librarians about the design of a learning commons, Doug Johnson, former director of Media and Technology at Mankato Area Public Schools, Mankato, Minnesota, suggests (2013, 84): We can learn by looking at places where kids want to be. Coffee shops show that kids want social learning spaces. Gyms and theaters indicate that libraries should be performance spaces where kids can share information, not just absorb it. And finally, the popularity of social networking sites and media sharing sites like YouTube demand that we make libraries knowledge production areas.

86 

 Jessica Kohout and Karen W. Gavigan

The Lexington Story: From Media Centre to Learning Commons Lexington School District One is located west of Columbia, the capital city of South Carolina in the USA. The District includes the town of Lexington and more rural areas, such as Gilbert and Pelion, and covers 48% of the county’s 750 square miles. The school district serves more than 24,000 students with over 1,600 teachers at 17 elementary schools, 7 middle schools, 5 high schools, 1 technology centre, and 1 alternative learning centre. All elementary, middle, and high schools in the school district have at least one full-time library media specialist and one full-time media assistant. All middle and high schools have one full-time technology integration specialist, and almost all elementary schools have these positions on a full-time basis. Library media specialists in Lexington School District One collaborate with classroom teachers and curriculum specialists to ensure that students and staff are effective users of ideas and information. The role of the technology integration specialist in the District is to train, model, and help teachers increase student learning through the effective use of technology. In the past, the District held monthly meetings for library media specialists, and the technology integration specialists met separately for their meetings. The library media specialists and the technology integration specialists were typically housed in different spaces in the school, not necessarily in close proximity. In the few cases where they were located in the same facility, it was mainly out of a need for space, not specifically for collaborative purposes. Lexington School District One has been working for three years to implement the learning commons philosophy in all of its school libraries. The genesis of this project began after library media specialists heard David Loertscher speak at the South Carolina Association of School Librarians’ Conference in March 2011. The concept was eventually presented to, and ultimately supported by, the Chief Academic Officer and Superintendent of the school district. Financial support for the implementation of the learning commons model was provided by matching grants that were made available for two years through the Lexington School District One Educational Foundation. Technology integration specialists and library media specialists could apply for up to $5,000 and, with matching support, could retrieve up to $10,000 to help transform traditional library spaces into learning commons. The technology integration specialists and school library media specialists have collaborated on the transition from traditional school libraries to learning commons using the work of David Loertscher. They have created their own set of



7 The Learning Commons 

 87

rubrics based on his work to help make the transition to the learning commons model. The purpose of the rubrics is to help technology integration specialists and library media specialists evaluate the facilities and to continue to improve on the learning commons model.

The Change Process The effort to move from traditional school library environments to learning commons facilities began in summer (July to August) 2011. The district purchased Loertscher, Koechlin and Zwaan’s The New Learning Commons (2008) for all technology integration specialists and library media specialists to read over the summer. A steering committee consisting of technology integration specialists and library media specialists was appointed by two administrators in the Instructional Services Department of the District. The steering committee consisted of representatives from all grade levels, elementary, middle, and high school. The objective of the steering committee was to work with the administration to develop a plan for establishing the learning commons model in all of the schools in the District. The technology integration specialists and library media specialists began to meet together in monthly district meetings beginning in fall 2011, and the offices of technology integration specialists, literacy coaches, and information technology staff were moved to spaces within the learning commons area. The first year of implementation included many discussions about what a learning commons looked like, as well as research about the learning commons model. Learning commons teams eventually created wish lists for items needed to make the transition and, from these wish lists, the district gave 55-inch (140-cm) televisions and five MacBook Airs for each of the learning commons the following school year. During the 2012–2013 school year, the technology integration specialists and library media specialists began to create rubrics based on Loertscher, Koechlin and Zwaan’s work. These rubrics were designed to assess the physical, virtual, and experimental components of the learning commons. The physical commons includes a “completely flexible learning space” that supports and promotes collaboration. The virtual learning commons includes the virtual open commons and the virtual experimental learning center. It includes tutorials, resources, tools, and supports collaboration and also is a place where professional development and learning are centred. The experimental learning centre or experimental commons “houses professional, experimentation, and exhibition of exemplary teaching and learning experiences in the school” (Loertscher, Koechlin and

88 

 Jessica Kohout and Karen W. Gavigan

Zwaan 2008, 8). The rubrics reflect the District’s mission statement, “The mission of Lexington County School District One – where caring people, academics, the arts, and athletics connect – is to prepare 21st Century graduates while serving as the center for community learning” (Lexington School District One, n.d.). All Library Media Specialists and Technology Integration Specialists participated in this process that took almost an academic year of meetings to create. The process included various protocols for discussion, feedback, and clarifying questions where all could participate and be heard. For several activities, parts of rubrics were written on large pieces of paper where rotating groups could write questions, comments, or ideas for evidences on the paper. Other charts were made to gather feedback on what was most important to discuss for the meeting. Learning commons teams from all schools were able to work together and, for some activities, the different levels of schools were grouped or mixed. For other activities, the technology integration specialists and library media specialists were grouped with others not from their home school. Rubrics were eventually typed in Google Documents and shared with everyone so that suggestions could be made in the drafting process. One of the goals of the steering committee was to ensure that everyone had an opportunity to participate in the process. After each meeting together, the steering committee would send a Google Form survey to participants that asked for feedback on what went well, what needed to be improved, and ideas for the steps to take next. The feedback often guided the steering committee’s plans for the following meeting. Through this collaborative process, the technology integration specialists and library media specialists were able to have conversations and decide what was most important for criteria and evidences for rubrics for the physical, virtual, and experimental commons. The process of creating evidence for the rubrics brought up questions and encouraged discussions about school and district needs. The rubrics had to be relevant to all schools, whether the school was over fifty years old, or a school that was less than a year old. They also had to be designed to meet present and future school needs. Agreement on what the criteria looked like took many meetings, as discussions were lengthy on what infrastructure, furniture, and equipment were needed to help transition to an ideal learning commons. Teams relied on standards from South Carolina Standards for School Library Resource Collections (South Carolina Department of Education 2012) in order to include best practices when preparing the rubrics. Sample items from each of the rubric categories follow: –– Physical Learning Commons: Space is inviting and appeals to school community, promotes inquiry, discovery, and creativity; –– Experimental Learning Commons: Collaboration occurs within this space;



7 The Learning Commons 

 89

–– Virtual Learning Commons: Provides access to online tools, databases, and other resources. After the final drafts of the rubrics were created, the teams of technology integration specialists and library media specialists used them to score the learning commons at their schools. Based on the areas needing most growth, the teams selected up to three goals they would work on for the next academic year, and this information was shared with their school’s administration. For example, the goals for the Meadow Glen Middle School learning commons include increasing the collaboration that takes place in the experimental commons and organizing student technology leaders who can help with technology in the learning commons. During the 2014–2015 school year, the supervisor of the technology integration specialists and library media specialists is visiting schools and scoring the physical, virtual, and experimental commons based on the rubrics created. The intention is not to criticize or discourage the specialists, but to create benchmarks in order to identify needs and to improve in the future. Technology integration specialists and library media specialists continue to meet and work together as a learning commons team. All schools are working to transform their spaces and to meet the criteria of the learning commons rubrics.

Features Newer library facilities in the school district have included the learning commons concept in their construction and design, which includes more open spaces, movable furniture, and collaborative spaces. Older facilities have had to make changes to transition to the learning commons model. For example, collections have been heavily weeded and more digital books have been purchased in order to re-arrange bookshelves so that more open spaces are created. Some teams have written grants or raised funds to acquire movable furniture, mobile shelving, or newer technology. Several library media specialists have given up their offices and turned them into recording studios or other work spaces for students. A shift in how the space is used has occurred within the District. Learning commons’ calendars were made public, and some can be edited by teachers in order to make the space more accessible. Teams have updated their websites to be more user-friendly, interactive, and more like a virtual learning commons. Teams have educated their school community on the learning commons and the services / resources available.

90 

 Jessica Kohout and Karen W. Gavigan

A Middle School Learning Commons One of the model learning commons in Lexington School District One is located at Meadow Glen Middle School, a new school that opened in August 2012. The learning commons serves as a centre for inquiry where students and teachers collaborate, think critically, explore new technologies, share information, and connect to a global society. It is based on a model aimed at meeting the needs of 21st-century learners. The learning commons features an open-plan concept with an entire wall of windows and with most of its furniture on wheels. The space was designed with the learning commons model in mind. The offices of the technology integration specialist and library media specialist are across from one another. Spaces for the experimental commons, conference room, and media production room were built within the facility as well. A collapsible glass wall separates the experimental commons and allows for a separate learning space, or it can be opened up to the main open commons. The learning commons’ collection contains about 3,500 print books and 3,500 electronic books. This frees up the space since less shelving is needed than what would be needed for a collection of only physical books. The furniture includes moveable couches, comfortable chairs, and tables with wheels. A mounted television and a portable television with Apple TVs can be used to create separate teaching and learning spaces as needed. All students and teachers have district-issued iPads with high speed wireless access, and within the learning commons space, students also have access to MacBook Airs, an iMac, a printer and scanner, and video cameras. The space is large enough to host several classes at one time. Due to the collaborative nature of the school, up to three of the same grade level classes are sometimes taught in the same space, while other student learning can take place in the experimental commons. Collaboration between the technology integration specialists and the library media specialists happens on a regular basis, and collaboration between members of the team occurs within the space.

Lessons Learned and Recommendations for Future Action Many people contributed to the process of creating a vision for what the learning commons is for the District, but there were challenges along the way. When Loertscher’s work was first shared with the technology integration specialists and the library media specialists, there was some resistance to change. Initially, not



7 The Learning Commons 

 91

every library media specialist and technology integration specialist was supportive of this shift, often due to budget and space issues at their schools. The library media specialists and technology integration specialists learned the importance of working as a team to help make the learning commons relevant to its users. There also were concerns about the use of rubrics to assess the redesign of the library facilities. The idea of being assessed using these rubrics brought up fears and anxieties within the teams about how the scores would affect the work of the teams. The process of creating rubrics brought about the need to clarify specific concepts, such as what it looks like to have students collaborate online and the development of a diverse collection of materials that meets the needs of students and teachers. Today, the rubrics designed to evaluate the learning commons model are being used to set professional goals, and they will continue to be used to identify the needs of the physical, virtual, and experimental commons. The learning commons within the district vary in size, age, and resources, but everyone is working together to improve on this client-based model. Some changes have been very visible such as the purchasing of newer equipment or moveable furniture, putting wheels on older furniture, and weeding books to remove shelves. However, other less visible changes are more important, such as collaborating with teachers, encouraging collaboration within the learning commons, providing surveys to teachers and students to have their voices heard regarding the relevancy of the space, providing spaces/areas for students to give their opinions or record projects, and creating more teaching and learning spaces. School librarians who are considering implementing a learning commons approach for their libraries should remember that a successful learning commons is more about creating an active, engaging learner-centered environment than it is about creating the facility itself. The strength of a quality learning commons lies in collaborative learning that occurs between and among the library media specialists, technology integration specialists, classroom teachers, and students. Finally, regardless of the level of support or resources they have, librarians should consider the following advice: Establishing a learning commons in a school can be done with a limited or plentiful amount of resources. Start the programme first, meaning that co-teaching is happening, simultaneous use of physical facilities, the construction of a virtual learning commons and making both students and teachers start to feel like they have ownership of the idea. For those lacking resources, become the world’s great scrounge. Ask everyone for help, time, and money to spruce things up. This includes students, teachers, janitors, parents, community organizations and businesses. Lots of folks will pitch in when they feel that the results will make a real difference in teaching and learning. (David Loertscher, e-mail message to authors, 1 November 2014)

92 

 Jessica Kohout and Karen W. Gavigan

References Accardi, Maria T., Cordova Memo and Leeder Kim. 2010. “Reviewing the Library Learning Commons: History, Models, and Perspectives.” College and Undergraduate Libraries 17(2): 310–329. Beagle, Donald R. 2006. The Information Commons Handbook. New York: Neal Schuman Publishers. Hill, Mark, and Lalitha Vasudevan, eds. 2008. Media, Learning, and Sites of Possibility. New York: Peter Lang. IFLA. 2015. IFLA School Library Guidelines Draft. [Draft dated 12 January 2015.] Johnson, Doug. 2013. “Power Up! The New School Library” Educational Leadership 71(2): 84–85. Lexington School District One. “About Us.” http://www.lexington1.net/lexoneweb/aboutus.aspx. Accessed on 2 January 2015. Loertscher, David V. and Carol Koechlin. 2014. “Climbing to Excellence: Defining Characteristics of Successful Learning Commons.” Knowledge Quest 42(4): E2–E10. Loertscher, David V., Carol Koechlin and Esther Rosenfeld. 2012. The Virtual Learning Commons: Building a Participatory School Learning Community. Salt Lake City, UT: Learning Commons Press. Loertscher, David V., Carol Koechlin and Sandi Zwaan. 2008. The New Learning Commons Where Learners Win! Reinventing School Libraries and Computer Labs. Salt Lake City, UT: Hi Willow Research & Publishing. Loertscher, David V., Carol Koechlin and Sandi Zwaan. 2011. The New Learning Commons Where Learners Win! Reinventing School Libraries and Computer Labs. 2nd ed. Salt Lake City, UT: Hi Willow Research & Publishing. Ontario School Library Association (OSLA). 2010. Together for Learning: School Libraries and the Emergence of the Learning Commons: A Vision for the 21st Century. Toronto: OSLA. https://www.accessola.org/web/Documents/OLA/Divisions/OSLA/TogetherforLearning. pdf. Accessed on 18 February 2015. South Carolina Department of Education. 2012. South Carolina Standards for School Library Resource Collections. https://ed.sc.gov/agency/programs-services/36/documents/ Standards_School_Library_Resource_Collections.pdf. Accessed on 8 November 2014. Valenza, Joyce Kasman, and Doug Johnson. 2009. “Things That Keep Us Up at Night.” School Library Journal 55(10): 28–32. White, Peggy, Susan Beatty and Darlene Warren. 2010. “Information Commons.” In Encyclopedia of Library and Information Sciences, Vol. 3, edited by Marcia J. Bates and Mary Niles Maack, 2401–2408. London: Taylor & Francis.

Elsa Conde, Isabel Mendinhos and Paula Correia

8 School Library Learning Standards 8 in Portugal 8 School Library Learning Standards in Portugal

Leading the Way Abstract: The main purpose of this chapter is to present the work of the School Libraries Network Programme of the Ministry of Education and Science of Portugal in creating a set of learning standards associated with reading, information and media competencies that school libraries are expected to promote and integrate into curricular activities. Launched in 1996, the School Libraries Network currently includes more than 2,400 libraries, covering 100% of second-cycle, third-cycle and secondary schools and the majority of larger first-cycle schools. All students have a library in their schools or benefit from a library service. The experiment in using the standards Learning with the School Library was initiated in 2013 with a group of 25 schools, doubled in 2014, and currently extends to more than 150 schools. The evaluation of the pilot has demonstrated the usefulness of the document, strengthened the role of the school librarian in teaching and learning, and promoted the collaboration of the library with the school community. Teachers recognized the innovative nature of the learning activities, and students were highly engaged and were able to acquire new skills. Keywords: Portugal; School library network; Literacy standards; Student assessment; Impact of standards

Introduction The development of digital technologies and of the Internet and the growing awareness of the educational role of libraries in the acquisition of a set of increasingly vast and complex skills has given rise to the definition of frames of reference that guide work of librarians in the development of new forms of literacy. Academic and school libraries and other institutions have produced guidelines, curricula and standards (see, for example, AASL/AECT 1998; ACRL 2000; ANZIIL 2004; IFLA 2006; AASL 2007; SCONUL 2011; UNESCO 2011), which have evolved in scope and conceptual base, parallel to the confluence of information with new technologies, media and digital environments.

94 

 Elsa Conde, Isabel Mendinhos and Paula Correia

School libraries have assumed a great deal of responsibility in this response to change. “The school library is the school’s physical and virtual learning space where reading, inquiry, research, thinking, imagination, and creativity are central to students’ information-to-knowledge journey, and to their personal, social and cultural growth“ (IFLA 2015, Section 1.3). Research data worldwide continue to demonstrate the contribution of school libraries and teacher librarians to students’ learning and increased levels of literacy and to equal access to culture and knowledge (Williams, Wavell and Morrison 2013). In Portugal, school libraries are supported by the School Libraries Network Programme (SLNP). The network was launched in 1996 by the Ministries of Education and Culture, and it has developed libraries in state schools at every level and given them technical and pedagogical support and consultancy. There are 2,450 school libraries in this network that covers all second-cycle (ten to eleven years old) , third-cycle (twelve to fourteen years old) and secondary schools and many first-cycle (six to nine years old) ones as well. Schools are organized in clusters where there can be several school libraries and up to three teacher librarians.

Learning with the School Library The role of school libraries in the acquisition of cross-curriculum knowledge and the greater awareness of the importance that such knowledge assumes in meeting the needs of students in the twenty-first century led to the establishment by the SLNP, in 2012, of a learning standards framework associated with the work of school libraries in preschool and basic education entitled Learning with the School Library (Rede de Bibliotecas Escolares 2012a). The implementation of those standards incorporates the SLNP Strategic Framework for 2014–2020 (Rede de Bibliotecas Escolares 2013a) and operates in conjunction with the School Libraries Evaluation Model: 2014–2017 (Rede de Bibliotecas Escolares 2013b). Together, these three documents create a comprehensive policy of development and consolidation of school libraries and of their work on behalf of learning, educational success and the improving of literacies. The main objectives of the launching of the document Learning with the School Library are: –– to contribute to the development of literacies that are essential for learning and for preparing students in the knowledge society; –– to integrate the role of the school library and the action of the teacher librarian in promoting and improving the levels of these literacies;



8 School Library Learning Standards in Portugal 

 95

–– to associate reading, media, technologies and working with information in curricular or extracurricular learning situations, through the collaboration of school libraries with teachers/educators; –– to provide school libraries with a guidance tool that can contribute to the extension of their role, influence and impact on educational success; and –– to implement the guidelines and research trends in the areas of teaching and learning, of literacies and school libraries.

Learning with the School Library: A Framework for Learning The framework for learning that underpins Learning with the School Library is divided into the three areas of reading literacy, media literacy, and information literacy: –– reading literacy: includes the use, reflection and understanding of multimodal, printed or digital texts, and the mastery of different forms of expression (oral, written and multimedia); –– media literacy: includes the critical analysis and understanding of the nature of the different media and of the products, communication techniques and messages used by them, as well as their impact on individuals and society and to give students the skills to use them in an informed and creative way; and –– information literacy: equips students with skills that enable them to search, access, evaluate, produce and ethically and effectively use resources and information and communication tools, whatever their format may be. Technological and digital literacy does not have a specific place in this framework, since it crosses all areas. This reflects the presence of technologies, tools and digital environments in all learning contexts and situations experienced at school or elsewhere. Performance standards were established for each of the three areas of the framework for learning, that is, reading literacy, media literacy, and information literacy. Performance indicators were organized by level/teaching cycle, given the fluid and cumulative nature of the learning established for each area, the differences in acquisition rhythm, and the need for their flexible and integrated management. Performance standards were established to be achieved at the end of preschool education (three to five years old) and at the end of the first cycle, second cycle and third cycle of basic education. For each level, knowledge, skills,

96 

 Elsa Conde, Isabel Mendinhos and Paula Correia

attitudes and values are presented in a comprehensive manner, as shown in the example (see Table 8.1, p. 97). In each area of literacy, a set of operational strategies is also provided to help contextualize the action of the library and the connections that can be established with the curriculum. The last part of the document consists of examples of implementation activities, which are possible ideas, indicative of many other possibilities, left to the freedom and creativity of schools to design and plan.

Implementation of the Learning Standards, Learning with the School Library The implementation of the framework Learning with the School Library began in the school year 2012–2013 with a group of 25 schools. This group was expanded in 2013–2014 to 50 schools and reaches currently over 150 schools. Table 8.2 (p. 98) shows the distribution of schools, tested in 2012–2014. The schools were chosen for the pilot project according to the following criteria: –– coverage of the four levels of education and the three areas of the framework; –– existence of schools with different profiles, corresponding to different degrees of importance given to the library and of teacher librarian leadership; –– follow-up locally by the school libraries regional coordinators, depending on the geographic location of schools; and –– involvement of a teacher librarian, a teacher and a class per school or group of schools. The implementation process included the following participants: school principal, pedagogical management bodies, teacher librarian/school library team, the school libraries regional coordinators, teachers (in collaboration with teacher librarian/ school library team) and students. The school libraries regional coordinators have played a collaborative role in monitoring the various phases of the project in schools, information collection and communication with the SLNP central services. The SLNP Agency was responsible, in conjunction with the regional coordinators, for the launch of the testing phase, the monitoring of the process and the analysis and reporting of data in order to improve this working tool and the extension of its use (Rede de Bibliotecas Escolares 2014a, 2014b).



8 School Library Learning Standards in Portugal 

Table 8.1: Reading literacy: knowledge and skills

 97

98 

 Elsa Conde, Isabel Mendinhos and Paula Correia

The implementation process in schools involved the following stages of work: –– review of curricula, education projects, plans of activities and work programs of the classes; –– reading and analysis of the document tables related to the selected areas; –– selection of appropriate indicators to the activities/projects to be developed; –– planning with teachers of activities/ projects where the framework would be used; –– identification and creation/adaptation of resources, tools and monitoring instruments to be used; –– carrying out the activities/projects; and –– learning monitoring and assessment. Table 8.2: Implementation of the learning standards Learning with the School Library: Distribution of schools involved in the pilot project

The pilot project was meant to assess the achievement of different results, such as: –– increase in reading scores; –– improvement in students’ skills in the areas identified in the framework that relate to the work and action of the school library; –– consistency and quality of the acts and educational activities to be developed; –– exploration of new contexts and teaching and learning practices supported by collaborative work experiences and joint evaluation; –– use of new tools and technologies and use of information in diverse situations of learning and knowledge building; –– integration, sustainability and impact of school library in the school and in the improvement of student learning; and



8 School Library Learning Standards in Portugal 

 99

–– recognition by the school management and pedagogical structures of the importance of the project and of the framework potential in improving learning. To support schools in using the set of standards, various materials were produced: –– a text on the theoretical framework and the design of the document (Rede de Bibliotecas Escolares 2012b); –– presentation of the document (Rede de Bibliotecas Escolares 2012c): –– planning sheet; –– observation grids; –– script for recording of the implementation process; –– overall learning activities assessment sheet. The collection of information about the project resulted from the content analysis of the above mentioned materials covering the two years of the pilot project, from visits to schools and meetings involving regional coordinators, teacher librarians and teachers involved in the pilot project, and from online contacts, via email and the community created for this purpose.

Professional Development for Monitoring and Assessment A training course in e-learning for two classes was organized by the SLNP between March and May 2014, covering a set of 45 regional coordinators, and the teacher librarians and teachers involved in the project. In this context, additional information was collected and other training materials were produced. This year this training has involved four more classes and a total of 120 trainees and is being replicated by the regional coordinators all over the country. One of the tasks in this course consisted of developing cross-frames between the knowledge and skills of the framework and the curriculum goals associated with different levels and disciplines, in order to integrate the various literacy skills into the curriculum as shown in the example (see Table 8.3, p. 100).

100 

 Elsa Conde, Isabel Mendinhos and Paula Correia

Table 8.3: Crossing the descriptors of the information literacy area of Learning with the School Library with the curricular goals of Natural Sciences (third cycle)



8 School Library Learning Standards in Portugal 

 101

The Assessment of the Framework, Learning with the School Library The different actors in the pilot project considered the framework of learning standards Learning with the School Library to be a well-structured document, clear, easy to read and understand, and an important tool for teaching and for librarians, helping to plan their intervention, to clarify the objectives of this intervention, to structure collaboration practices, and to better systematize their work. Thanks to this work related to the learning standards, the teacher librarians came to be seen and recognized by the entire school in a more positive way and with more awareness of their contributions. The suggested strategies and, especially, the examples were considered very useful in the implementation of the framework, and were looked upon as one of the most positive aspects of the document. The framework of learning standards Learning with the School Library promoted collaboration of the school librarian with teachers and classes. This collaborative work crossed the phases of planning and preparation of materials, the development of activities and evaluation. In general, we found that the action of the teacher focused more on the selection of materials, teaching content and the correction and evaluation of products; the intervention of the teacher librarians was more directed to instrumental aspects associated with operational activities in what concerns, for example, the promotion of reading sessions, providing instructions and guidance on research tasks and information processing, training for the use of digital tools, support the creation of products and presentations and reporting of results in the school and community. This articulation took place through meetings or brief informal work encounters. Often, several teachers and curriculum areas were involved and, sometimes, there was the participation of teachers responsible for projects and of other elements such as the coordinator of the National Reading Plan, parents, the public library and other partners associated to projects under development in schools. Teachers recognized the innovative character of the activities that were carried out. The working sessions and student support happened not only in the context of the subjects/curriculum areas, but also as part of local curricula in extra-curricular activities and even in reading, writing and technology clubs and workshops, and also through independent work. The activities took place in classrooms, in the library, laboratories and other spaces and had, depending on the situation, a more systematic basis, with regular previously established sessions throughout the year, or a more occasional or irregular nature. The work with students was organized in different ways: collectively with the whole group, in small groups,

102 

 Elsa Conde, Isabel Mendinhos and Paula Correia

pairs or individually. Work in small groups was the most frequent, with the consequent demand for more differentiated strategies and for increased support. For this, collaboration between the teacher and the teacher librarian proved to be essential. The strategies followed, in general, a philosophy of active learning, projectbased activities and practices of reading, research, production and communication. The practical application of the framework gave way to different strategies of teaching and learning, involving, for example, project work, research activities, training activities, reading and writing sessions, production of materials in various formats, exploration of techniques of brainstorming, discussion, reflection and oral presentation of ideas and conclusions, publication and distribution of content; games; expression and movement activities; dramatizations; and exhibitions. One of the most valued aspects of the work was related to the possibility of access to a set of diverse and different learning resources, especially in digital format. In this field, as technologies are transversal and present in all areas of literacy, teacher librarians have proved to be a valuable support to the use of this type of resources and tools. Students produced presentations, digital books, videos, created posters, wrote news, and presented their work to the class, school, and sometimes to their own community, by organizing small exhibitions or events at the end of the school year. The work was done with the help of several digital tools. Blogs, wikis, podcasts and other Web 2.0 tools were also widely used, contributing to students’ engagement in the work proposals. To support the activities, the libraries have provided equipment, books, catalogs, online databases, e-books, puppets, images, periodicals, films, lists and reading suggestions, and links of interest. Related to the curriculum contents, several resources were created in different formats: guidance documents, procedures manuals, research guides (Big6), thematic files, tutorials, presentations, brochures, flyers, informational texts and specific educational resources.

The Assessment of Impacts on Learning In the area of literacy assessment, authentic assessment tools are considered relevant, because they allow an objective, directly observable and formative assessment based on authentic situations and on evidence, which reflect the level of student performance in accordance with established criteria. Thus, gathering information on the evaluation of learning, beyond the observation grids and global assessment sheet provided by SLNP and filled jointly by the teacher librarian and the teacher, was performed through the use of different techniques: by



8 School Library Learning Standards in Portugal 

 103

surveys, through responses given by the students, in writing or orally, to questions asked before, during or after the set of activities; by observation of the students during the activities; and based on documents produced by them. These evaluation techniques were associated in each school with a set of assessment tools: checklists, self-assessment sheets, reports, questionnaires, answer sheets, diaries and other reading records, opinion sheets. The observation grids were almost always adapted, and, in general, only a few items were chosen for skills observation. The overall form completed at the end of the implementation process had as its central objective the analysis and evaluation of the perceptions of the teachers involved in the development of activities, producing data for a very wide range of dimensions: –– overall assessment of the framework of learning standards Learning with the School Library; –– planning of tasks related to the implementation; –– collaboration between teachers and teacher librarians; –– school library resources utilization; –– produced materials; –– dissemination and advocacy; –– motivation of the students in the implementation of activities; and –– impact of activities on student learning.

The Results of the Assessment The evaluation of the results of the pilot project seems to be an area in which major difficulties often arise: to assess in parallel knowledge/skills inherent to content and to cross-curriculum learning to which the library has added; to translate into results behaviours not always easy to observe and measure; and to evaluate in a short time certain types of learning that are only possible in longer terms. Thus, assessment primarily was formative and experimental in character, contributing to monitoring the course of the sessions and the students’ progress throughout the process. The creation and validation of new assessment tools and the external evaluation of the pilot implementation project of the framework are, meanwhile, being conducted through collaboration with the Institute of Education of the University of Lisbon predicting the widespread application of the framework from the end of 2015. From the joint reflection reported by the teacher librarians and teachers involved in the pilot group at the end of each year emerges a very positive evaluation of the level of collaboration, the materials used, the support given to stu-

104 

 Elsa Conde, Isabel Mendinhos and Paula Correia

dents and the impact on work and use of the school library and on learning. Most teachers and teacher librarians referred to progress achieved, at least in part of the items, although they recognized the need to improve the mechanisms of evaluation and the wish to continue the experiment in the following years, in order to affirm and consolidate that progress. Through the testimonies of teachers and teacher librarians, we noted positive perceptions, either in the area of the descriptors of literacy areas in the framework (for example, improving reading comprehension, acquisition of research methods, development of critical thinking, respect for copyright, internet safety, handling tools, or increased rates of reading and use of the school library), or in disciplinary content. Although only based on this first experience of testing, it seems certain that one of the main perceived effects has to do with students’ attitudes, generally characterized by a strong involvement, enthusiasm and motivation in relation to what was proposed to them and a greater appreciation of the school library. Students enjoyed using different strategies and learned in a more extensive and deeper way.

Recommendations and New Perspectives for the Project Development The experience of applying the framework in the pilot project in the period 2012– 2014 led to the formulation of a set of improvement proposals: –– improve management of the time schools devote to the project to ensure better coordination of the activities in the classroom and in the library and to strengthen the joint work of teachers and teacher librarians; –– develop the project with the same students over time and systematically, in order to consolidate and guarantee the evolution of learning and a more accurate assessment of its impact; –– increase and diversify the disciplines, levels, classes, areas and types of literacy activities in schools; –– guarantee the existence in schools of time dedicated to the evaluation and presentation of results and products and to publicize the project among the educational community; and –– continue to invest in upgrading the resources and equipment of libraries and in the teacher librarian and teachers training in the area of literacies. Continuity is occurring by testing the framework in more than 150 schools. It is intended to deepen the experience of work in progress and extend it to a larger



8 School Library Learning Standards in Portugal 

 105

number of schools. Alongside the continued expansion of the project, a new set of actions are already being prepared to be put in practice from 2015 onwards, for the future development of the project: –– incorporate proposals for improving and validating the implementation process and its instruments, based on external evaluation of the project being conducted by the Education Institute of Lisbon University; –– create a computer application for technical and pedagogical support to the implementation and process of operation by schools of the framework of learning standards Learning with the School Library; –– provide guidance and new examples of activities, resources and support materials; –– with the collaboration of regional coordinators, expand training on Learning with the School Library for new schools; and –– disseminate as widely as possible the work and results of the project.

Conclusion The Learning with the School Library framework was considered a relevant and useful document, well structured, clear and supportive for all. Teacher librarians considered that the document fosters their contribution to the curriculum, helps to plan their intervention with teachers, and to rethink their practices, qualifying them in the school context. For teachers, the document clearly demonstrated the advantage of linking with libraries, working together with them. The participation in activities in the school library has extended students’ concepts about the use and value of the library. Students joined with enthusiasm and motivation to the proposed activities, enjoyed using different strategies, and learned in a more extensive way showing progress in their skills and knowledge. The way we relate to the information world, the way we learn and socialize, is changing, leading to the need for developing new knowledge and skills. However, recent developments in educational policies that favour valuing outcomes to the detriment of process, emphasising exams, using more content transmissive methods, and overloading with discipline content add extra difficulties for the implementation of new methodologies and contexts that allow the learning of new literacies. Thus, the responsiveness and initiative of schools and teachers are crucial to a successful implementation of the SLNP framework. This fact, combined with the need for the teacher librarian to reach all schools and students suggests, therefore, a gradual and voluntary implementation of the project in schools through phased interventions in which teachers realize that collabora-

106 

 Elsa Conde, Isabel Mendinhos and Paula Correia

tion with the library does not necessarily mean more work, but better work and stronger compliance of curriculum goals. Literacies are valued by using innovative teaching techniques. The contribution of the teacher librarian was therefore crucial for the exploration of new strategies through the creation of materials and new teaching proposals, provision of relevant resources, support for the use of technology, creation of different learning contexts, an aid to study and research tasks and development of collaborative experiences in planning, teaching and assessment with teachers of different disciplines. The framework of the learning standards, Learning with the School Library, clearly contributed to strengthening the role of the library in schools. It is imperative that the learning standards continue to be rooted in the practices of the school and that they are consolidated as a routine part of school work. With this pilot project experience, school libraries have added value to the curriculum, enriched teaching strategies and modes, contributed to learning and to the development of literacies, and promoted inclusion and citizenship.

References American Association of School Librarians (AASL). 2007. Standards for the 21st Century Learner. Chicago: American Library Association. http://umanitoba.ca/libraries/units/education/ media/InformationLiteracyStandards_final.pdf. Accessed on 15 November 2014. American Association of School Librarians and Association for Education Communications and Technology (AASL/AECT). 1998. Information Literacy Standards for Student Learning. Chicago: American Library Association. http://www.ala.org/ala/mgrps/divs/acrl/ standards/standards.pdf. Accessed on 15 November 2014. Association of College and Research Libraries (ACRL). 2000. Information Literacy Competency Standards for Higher Education. Chicago: American Library Association. Accessed on 15 November 2014. http://www.ala.org/ala/mgrps/divs/acrl/standards/standards.pdf Australian and New Zealand Institute for Information Literacy (ANZIIL). 2004. Australian and New Zealand Information Literacy Framework: Principles, Standards And Practices. Ed. Alan Bundy. Adelaide: Australian and New Zealand Institute for Information Literacy. http://www.nvit.ca/docs/australian%20and%20new%20zealand%20information%20 literacy%20framework%20principles_%20standards%20and%20practice.pdf. Accessed on 15 November 2014. IFLA. 2006. Guidelines on information literacy for lifelong learning. Final draft by Jesús Lau, IFLA. http://www.ifla.org/files/assets/information-literacy/publications/ ifla-guidelines-en.pdf. Accessed on 15 November 2014. IFLA. 2015. IFLA School Library Guidelines Draft. [Draft dated 12 January 2015.] Rede de Bibliotecas Escolares. 2012a. Aprender com a biblioteca escolar: referencial de aprendizagens associadas ao trabalho das bibliotecas escolares na Educação Pré-escolar e no Ensino Básico. Lisboa: RBE. http://www.rbe.mec.pt/np4/conteudos/



8 School Library Learning Standards in Portugal 

 107

np4/?newsId=681&fileName=Aprender_com_a_biblioteca_escolar.pdf. Accessed on 15 November 2014. Rede de Bibliotecas Escolares. 2012b. Aprender com a biblioteca escolar: enquadramento e conceção. Lisboa: RBE. http://www.rbe.mec.pt/np4/file/697/aprender_enquadramento. pdf. Accessed on 15 November 2014. Rede de Bibliotecas Escolares. 2012c. Aprender com a biblioteca escolar: apresentação. Lisboa: RBE. http://www.rbe.mec.pt/np4/file/697/aprender_enquadramento.pdf. Accessed on 15 November 2014. Rede de Bibliotecas Escolares. 2013a. Programa Rede de Bibliotecas Escolares: quadro estratégico: 2014–2020. Lisboa: RBE. http://www.rbe.mec.pt/np4/ np4/?newsId=1048&fileName=978_972_742_366_8.pdf. Accessed on 15 November 2014. Rede de Bibliotecas Escolares. 2013b. Modelo de avaliação da biblioteca escolar. Lisboa: RBE. http://www.rbe.mec.pt/np4/file/1047/978_972_742_365_1.pdf. Accessed on 15 November 2014. Rede de Bibliotecas Escolares. 2014a. Aprender com a biblioteca escolar: relatório do projeto piloto de aplicação do referencial Aprender com a biblioteca escolar 2012–2013. Lisboa: RBE. http://www.rbe.mec.pt/np4/conteudos/np4/?newsId=1273&fileName=aval_ referencial_2014.pdf. Accessed on 15 November 2014. Rede de Bibliotecas Escolares. 2014b. Aprender com a biblioteca escolar: relatório do projeto piloto de aplicação do referencial Aprender com a biblioteca escolar 2013–2014. Lisboa: RBE. http://www.rbe.mec.pt/np4/np4/?newsId=1430&fileName=referencial_aval_13.14. pdf. Accessed on 30 November 2014. Society of College, National and University Libraries (SCONUL). 2011. The SCONUL Seven Pillars of Information Literacy: Core Model for Higher Education. London: SCONUL. http://www. sconul.ac.uk/sites/default/files/documents/coremodel.pdf. Accessed on 15 November 2014. UNESCO. 2011. Media and Information Literacy Curriculum for Teachers. By Carolyn Wilson et. al. Paris: UNESCO. http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0019/001929/192971e.pdf. Accessed on 15 November 2014. Williams, Dorothy, Caroline Wavell and Katie Morrison. 2013. Impact of School Libraries on Learning. Aberdeen: Robert Gordon University. Institute for Management, Governance & Society. http://www.scottishlibraries.org/storage/sectors/schools/SLIC_RGU_Impact_of_ School_Libraries_2013.pdf. Accessed on 15 November 2014.

Part 4 Using Guidelines for School Library Part 4 Advocacy and Development

Karin Ahlstedt, Inga Andersson, Sofia Hög, Jenny Lindmark and Bo Westas Karin Ahlstedt et al.

9 School Libraries for All From Concept to Reality in Sweden

Abstract: This chapter describes the work undertaken by a group of experts within the Swedish trade union DIK, to transform “school libraries for all” from an undefined legal concept into a concrete reality. The process was comprised of four distinct steps: a definition of “school library”, a definition of the competences of a school librarian, examples of best practice and a statistical reality test. The expert group brings us closer to answering the central question, “Does the school library make any difference to students’ learning?” The findings show that what makes the difference in student achievement is not just the presence of a school library and a school librarian, but the quality of the programmes and services provided. Finally, the group also reflects on some experiences and lessons learned during this four-year undertaking. Keywords: Sweden; School library definitions; Competence of the school librarian; Media and information literacy; Advocacy; World Class School Library.

Background The Swedish government proposed a new Education Act in the spring of 2010. The Act was to be fully implemented by July 2011. The new Act contained a provision stipulating that all students should have “access to a school library”. Prior to this, libraries in the school community were regulated exclusively by the Library Act. Since school libraries were not mentioned in the Education Act, they were not the responsibility of the ones with real power to develop them, school principals, whose focus was, and still is, the Education Act. With the new act, “access to a school library” became part of school principals’ legal responsibility. However, no definition of “school library” is provided, either in the Act or in any related documents, leaving both bureaucrats and principals with the question: How do I recognize a school library when I see one? (Limberg and Hampson Lundh 2013, 11) There are many definitions of what constitutes a “school library”. But they differ between countries and can even differ within the same country (IFLA 2015, Section 2.4; Limberg and Hampson Lundh 2013, 12–13). In order to give an answer

112 

 Karin Ahlstedt et al.

to the question from a professional perspective, DIK decided to appoint an expert working group on school libraries. DIK is a Swedish trade union organizing academically trained professionals in the fields of culture and communication. DIK has 20,000 members, with a high level of representation among librarians: more than eight out of ten Swedish librarians are members. Involvement by a trade union in this kind of advocacy for school libraries is perhaps a bit unusual, but by no means unique. An example from another Nordic country, Norway, was presented at the IFLA meeting in Lyon in 2014 (Aas 2014). It should be noted that the group started with one clearly defined task, but one thing inevitably led to another. In retrospect, and in print, this journey might appear both well structured and logical. In reality, it was an intuitive and at times uncertain process.

Access to School Libraries in Swedish Schools In May 2012, National Library of Sweden completed a large survey of Swedish school libraries. The survey focused on availability in the form of adequate personnel, opening hours, and analogue and digital media. The survey also examined what kinds of activities school library staff performed, ranging from the promotion of reading, education and support in the area of information literacy, to pedagogical collaboration with teachers and school principals. In this survey a “school library” was identified as: –– having a catalogue, manual or computerized; –– being located on the school premises; –– being staffed at least 20 hours a week; and –– having at least 1000 physical media (six bookshelves). The result of the survey showed that few students in Swedish schools had access to “a school library”. Actually, only one in three students in primary and secondary education had access to a school library, as defined in accordance with the above criteria (Kungliga biblioteket 2012, 4). The survey confirmed the common but outdated perception of school libraries as rooms of books, nothing more. Even if a school said it had access to a school library, it lacked the functions, resources, and availability necessary for a school library to act as an educational learning resource.



9 School Libraries for All 

 113

Step 1: Definition of a School Library The expert group’s first task was to define the term “school library”. The group consisted of four school librarians with professional work experience from different contexts, e.g., rural and big city schools, primary and secondary levels of education. After extensive discussions, taking into account social and technological trends influencing learning, as well as different contexts a definition should cover, the group formulated the following definition of a “school library” (DIK 2013): A school library is a pedagogical function. A school library’s mission is defined by the Education Act, curriculum and syllabuses. Under the guidance of a school librarian a school library strengthens students’ communicative and digital competences in a multimodal text world.

When formulating the definition, the group was inspired by the IFLA/UNESCO School Library Manifesto, and the definition is consistent with the draft IFLA School Library Guidelines. Among other things, the latter states that a school library has a qualified school librarian with formal education and that a school library should support the school’s curriculum and student learning (IFLA 2015, Sections 3.2–3.4) Since DIK sees school libraries within a perspective of lifelong learning, the group wanted the definition to relate explicitly to the European Union’s Key Competences for Lifelong Learning (European Union 2006). Communication and digital competence are two of the EU’s eight key competences. The advantage of using official and widely accepted concepts and definitions is that you do not have to define every term yourself. Further, using terms that politicians and other decision-makers are used to also facilitates discussion with them, especially when the same terms are regularly used in European educational policy debates. By including “school librarian” as an integral part of the definition, DIK emphasises that the quality of the school library programme is primarily dependent upon the human resources available within the school library. We state that, in our view, the school library is to a large extent equal to the school librarian. By declaring that a school library needs a school librarian to be fully able to strengthen the students’ communicative and digital competences, DIK says that just as it takes a maths teacher to make a room into a mathematical learning experience, it takes a librarian to make a room of books into a digital and communicative learning experience. Having concluded the work on defining “school library”, DIK’s definition along with explicative argumentation was put forward in meetings with the

114 

 Karin Ahlstedt et al.

Ministry of Education, the National Agency for Education and the Schools Inspectorate. DIK also had meetings with a number of other important parties, such as The Swedish Association of Local Authorities and Regions and The Swedish Association of School Principals and Directors of Education. The definition was both noted and commended, but it was not generally accepted in these discussions. The main reason for the hesitation was that the definition mentioned school librarians as an integral part of the school library. Everybody knew that including a school librarian in the definition meant higher costs, but nobody really knew what a school librarian was.

Step 2: Competence Criteria of a School Librarian Having presented its school library definition, the expert group was given a new task by the board of DIK: to define competence criteria for school librarians. At present, there is no specific training programme for school librarians in Sweden. Undergraduate and graduate studies in librarianship are more general. With a bachelor’s or master’s degree in Library and Information Science (LIS), you can work as a librarian in all kinds of libraries, (e.g., public libraries, school libraries and university libraries). You get a degree in LIS, and then you specialize through your work experience and short courses. Librarians in the field have requested specialized training programmes, with the aim of getting an education better fitted to the actual skills requirements in professional work. However, among policy- and decision-makers in the educational field, there is no general consensus that a school library should be staffed with a formally trained librarian. Hence, if a school’s library is staffed at all, it is commonly staffed by a teacher or a library assistant. One of the expert group’s ongoing missions is to convince the National Agency for Education that it should include school librarians in its statistics on “pedagogical personnel”. Currently, the Agency refuses to include school librarians in these statistics. In effect, this means that the responsible government agency consciously makes school librarians invisible in the statistics used by researchers in the educational field. It is therefore no surprise that researchers generally fail to see the important role played by school librarians in the students’ learning processes. The group began its search for competence criteria by taking stock of members’ day-to-day professional practice. This resulted in a long list of the tasks typically performed by a school librarian. The next step was to condense and



9 School Libraries for All 

 115

structure the contents of the list into a short-list of essential skills required by a school librarian. By its very nature, this was not a simple task. Just as the expert group had done in its work to define “school library”, we used the IFLA School Library Manifesto and Guidelines, as well as EU’s key competences, when structuring and trying to formulate the essential competences of a school librarian. This part of our work resulted in the following criteria, which are not exhaustive, but seen as central to the work done by a school librarian. A school librarian has: –– the ability to motivate further learning – learning to learn; –– instructional and relational skills to be able to tutor/supervise individuals and groups in individual and collective learning processes; –– digital competence with a focus on information-seeking processes from a user’s perspective; –– knowledge about and ability to use methods for mediation and communication of content; –– the ability to match media and content to students’ individual needs and circumstances; and –– the ability to overview present and potential learning resources and to organize and make information retrievable. It is worth explaining why we chose these competence criteria. The first criterion – the ability to motivate further learning, learning to learn – has its origins in the EU’s key competences for lifelong learning. This specific key competence includes gaining, processing and assimilating new knowledge and skills as well as seeking and making use of guidance. It includes awareness of one’s learning, metacognition. Informed learning requires awareness of one’s learning processes. As “informed-learning specialists”, librarians support students through their inquiry-based assignments. The second criterion – the didactic and relational skills to be able to tutor/ supervise individuals and groups in individual and collective learning processes – is also a necessary skill when supporting students through information-seeking processes. The educational part of the librarian profession has developed in interaction with syllabuses. Inquiry-based learning and a transformation of required skills into the field are essential today (Schreiber and Henrichsen 2006). Digital competence with a focus on information-seeking processes from a user’s perspective – the third criterion – is an expertise of librarians, starting from Carol Kuhlthau’s research on the users’ experiences of seeking and using information, as well as their efforts to gain a deeper understanding of the same (Kuhlthau 2004). Also, we deliberately chose the term “digital competence”, since it is one of the key competences used by the EU. We could have used the term

116 

 Karin Ahlstedt et al.

“information literacy” or “media and information literacy” (MIL), since they are widely used and to a large extent similar terms. We see no contradiction between them. Using digital competence made it easier to relate the group’s work to DIK’s policy in other fields (e.g., archives, public libraries and museums). The fourth criterion – knowledge about and the ability to use methods for mediation and communication of content – belongs to the standard knowledge base of the professional librarian and is a required competence across different library fields today. It is also an important prerequisite for integration in a school’s context (Schreiber and Henrichsen 2006). The last two criteria – the ability to match media and content to students’ individual needs and circumstances and the ability to overview present and potential learning resources and to organize and make information retrievable – are also part of the core competencies of a modern librarian. In our view, these competence criteria combined summarize the five roles of the professional school librarian as described in the IFLA School Library Guidelines: instruction, management, leadership and collaboration, community engagement and promoting library services (IFLA 2015, Section 3.5).

Step 3: Best Practice: World Class School Library Having defined the term “school library” and formulated competence criteria for a school librarian, the group moved forward to a third step, identifying best practice. This was done by creating the award World Class School Library [Skolbibliotek i världsklass]. Schools nominated their libraries by filling in a structured nomination form. The expert group then evaluated the nominations against the following quality criteria. A World Class School Library: –– is an explicit part of the school’s pedagogical vision; –– collaborates with the school management and the teachers around the students’ learning; –– strengthens the students’ communicative competences, especially reading, in a multimodal text world; –– strengthens the students’ digital competences with special focus on information skills and understanding of information-seeking processes and social media; –– supports individuals and groups in learning processes; and –– oversees learning resources and supports teachers and pupils in their use of literature and media.



9 School Libraries for All 

 117

World Class School Libraries are staffed by school librarians who: –– are efficient inspirers to increase the reading skills with the students; –– direct students into working tools for issues of credibility and authority of information; –– teach students to navigate in the flood of information and to be conscious about their digital identity; and –– are the core of the digital school of knowledge. The World Class School Library campaign has been running for two years (2013 and 2014). It has been a huge success and resulted in a lot of attention in the media, especially in local papers where school librarians have been interviewed about the award and their work. In 2014, 29 schools were given the award, 14 of them for the second time. In the first year of the award, only criteria relating to the school library were used, but based on our experiences from the first round of the award, the group found it necessary to emphasise the importance of a professional school librarian. Therefore, the award criteria were strengthened by adding the criteria related to the school librarian. Without qualified staff, the school library loses its strength as a means towards promoting educational improvement and student achievement (IFLA 2015, Section 5.2).

Step 4: Reality Test Based on the definition of a school library and the criteria relating to the competence of a school librarian, the group had discerned a small number of schools that were deemed as good examples for other schools to follow, namely schools with a World Class School Library. We had reached a point where our theoretical work and qualitative judgments could be tested against empirical facts in the form of statistics. The National Agency for Education has a set of statistics based on final grades achieved by 9th graders. These statistics are adjusted to take into account the students’ socio-educational family background (e.g., parents’ education, foreign background). During the summer of 2014, we used these statistics to test whether school libraries have any impact on students’ learning as measured in grades. We ran a number of different tests, comparing schools with a school library against schools with no school library. No significant differences were detected. We tested schools with staffed school libraries against schools with libraries without staff. Again there were no significant differences. We tested all these groups against schools

118 

 Karin Ahlstedt et al.

that had librarians in the school library. The result? Depressingly, we found no significant differences. Finally, we tested schools with a World Class School Library against all other schools. Admittedly, the World Class School Library category is small, so whatever result we got could not be stated as statistically significant. Nonetheless, a clear pattern emerged: the category “schools with a World Class School Library” had a much higher percentage of the “schools with high aggregated mean grades” than the category “all schools”. Also, the percentage of “schools with low aggregated mean grades” was smaller among schools with a World Class School Library. Since the two groups are different in size – one being very big while the other is very small – it is not possible to draw any statistically significant conclusions. Are the differences in grades due to the quality of the school library? We do not know. Correlation is not causality. We need research to be able to decide the question. It is worth remembering, though, that we didn’t find any differences when we tested library vs no library, not even when we tested library staffed by a librarian vs no librarian. What made a difference was a World Class School Library. This seems to indicate that what makes the difference in student achievement is not just the presence of a school library and a school librarian, but the quality of the programmes and services provided. For real change in learning to take place it is not enough to have a library, a librarian and good resources. The educators (including librarians and school principals) need to collaborate and have a common idea about the role played by the school library in learning. And this probably entails a change in the beliefs held by educators about the nature of children, the nature of learning, and the nature of teaching (Oberg 2001a, 2001b).

Lessons Learned So far in the chapter we have been focusing on the results, the products, of the expert group’s work. But we also want to share some experiences and lessons learnt relating to the work processes of the group. First of all, throughout this four-year period, we have benefited from having clearly defined tasks and set time frames – with yearly checkpoints in the form of reports to the board of DIK. This has helped the group to keep its focus. Second, in order to be able to benefit from the knowledge and experience of all members of the group, it is necessary to build a climate of creativity and trust. For us this means: “no remark is stupid” and “don’t get too formal until it’s time to make a decision on what the group wants as a collective”. Openness and cooperation, but with focus.



9 School Libraries for All 

 119

Third, this kind of advocacy work suffers as a rule from limited economic resources. The use of digital tools eased our cooperation within the group. Not only have the digital tools proved economically efficient, they have also opened up new and more collaborative ways of working and writing. Fourth, the school library is developed in the interstices between two kinds of organizations: education and culture. So the school library’s ground core is likely to be complex. In Sweden all publicly funded libraries, including school libraries, are parts of a common system regulated in the Library Act, which is the responsibility of the Ministry for Culture. But school libraries are now also regulated in the Education Act, which is the responsibility of the Ministry of Education. Thus, there is a formally shared responsibility between different ministries at the state level, which is also often mirrored in the organization at the local level (Limberg and Hampson Lundh 2013). And as often happens, when responsibility is shared it becomes diffuse and runs the risk of being neglected. This is an important reason behind many of the difficulties we have met in trying to strengthen school libraries. But it is important to remember that the interstitial position of the school library is also its strength. The school library is something else. It is something else from the public library, and it is something else from traditional teaching. And it is this difference that gives the school library the potential to transform learning in the school. The school librarian does not give you the right answer, but helps you to put the right question. Fifth, there is always a tension in this kind of advocacy work. Are we satisfied with promoting something good, or are we only satisfied with promoting “the best”? To have “competent personnel” in a school library is good; to have a “school librarian” is the best. Which should we be fighting for? We had a dilemma on our hands. In the first version of our definition of school library, from 2011, we used the phrase “competent personnel”, reasoning that any improvement in terms of competence in the school library was a good thing. However, after a year or so, we realized that this general term was too vague and actually hindered us in our efforts to ground our theoretical definition in the demands of day-to-day realities. In other words, instead of simply being satisfied with “good”, we wanted “the best”. We therefore made a deliberate strategic choice and updated our original definition, replacing “competent personnel” by “school librarian”. We are still struggling with the dilemma, but our goal is clearer. Sixth, if you’re interested in quick results, advocating for school libraries is not your business. In fact, it is astonishing how hard it is to break through old stereotypes and outdated conceptions of what a school library is. Furthermore, the political field of school and education is, like other political fields, permeated by strong vested interests, not least of which are other professional groups. Being right is often not enough without support and political backing. The group has

120 

 Karin Ahlstedt et al.

enjoyed great freedom in its work, but it has always had the active support of the board and president of DIK, who have used and promoted the group’s work in a number of opinion-building articles and meetings with politicians and decisionmakers. Seventh, the work presented in this chapter is the outcome of advocacy work by a group of school librarians. Time and again, however, we have become painfully conscious of the fact that research is essential. Above all, we need research focusing on how well resourced school libraries with professional school librarians impact students’ learning outcomes. But we also are cognizant of other problems that have emerged during our work, for example, the importance of cooperation between librarians and teachers. Louise Limberg (1998) shows how students researching an assignment come to understand their area of study differently; how they, as a result of particular ways of experiencing information seeking and use, come to understand the content in particular ways. Superficial approaches to information use are likely to correlate with superficial learning outcomes. These results point to the decisive role played by teachers and school librarians working in cooperation. Research also shows (Limberg and Hampson Lundh 2013, Oberg 2001b) that a well resourced school library does not automatically have a positive impact on students’ learning outcomes. The decisive factor seems to be how the school library is understood and used by school librarians, students and teachers. Finally, there have been times when we doubted our work, times when fighting for school libraries felt like fighting for a lost cause. These low points in morale are part of the process. What is important to remember is that digital developments in society, new forms of learning and teaching and competence demands from our knowledge-based society makes the case for professional school libraries stronger day by day.

References Aas, Mette Henriksen. 2014. “Why Should Unions Support School Libraries? The Norwegian Model.” Paper presented at IFLA World Library and Information Congress, 16–22 August, Lyon, France. http://library.ifla.org/id/eprint/441. Accessed on 20 February 2015. DIK. 2013. Vad är ett skolbibliotek? DIK reder ut begreppet. Nacka: DIK. http://dik.se/ media/173407/skolbibliotek_2013.pdf . Accessed on 1 March 2015. European Union. 2006. Recommendation of the European Parliament and of the Council on Key Competences for Lifelong Learning. (2006/962/EC). http://eur-lex.europa.eu/ legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex:32006H0962. Accessed on 20 February 2015. IFLA. 2015. IFLA School Library Guidelines Draft. [Draft dated 12 January 2015.]



9 School Libraries for All 

 121

Kuhlthau, Carol Collier. 2004. Seeking Meaning: A Process Approach to Library and Information Services. 2nd ed. Westport, CT: Libraries Unlimited. Kungliga biblioteket. 2012. Skolbiblioteket 2012: grundskolor, ungdomsgymnasier. Stockholm: Kungliga Biblioteket. http://www.kb.se/dokument/bibliotek/statistik/skolbibliotek2012/ skolbibliotek2012_webb.pdf. Accessed on 2 March 2015. Limberg, Louise. 1998. “Att söka information för att lära: en studie av samspel mellan informationssökning och lärande” [Experiencing Information Seeking and Learning: A study of the interaction between two phenomena] (doctoral dissertation, University of Gothenburg). Limberg, Louise, and Anna Hampson Lundh, eds. 2013. Skolbibliotekets roller i förändrade landskap: en forskningsantologi [The roles of school libraries in changing landscapes: A research anthology]. Lund: BTJ förlag. Oberg, Dianne. 2001a. “Teacher Transformation.” In Inquiry-based learning: Lessons from Library Power, by J. Donham, K. Bishop, C. Kuhlthau, and D. Oberg, 31–46. Worthington, OH: Linworth. Oberg, Dianne. 2001b. “Transforming Instructional Practice: Two Case Studies of Inquiry-Based Learning.” In Selected Papers from the 5th International Forum on Research in School Librarianship, held in conjunction with the 30th Annual Conference of the International Association of School Librarianship, 148–161. Auckland, New Zealand. Schreiber, Trine and Lise Alsted Henrichsen. 2006. “Gymnasiebibliotekarerne og temaet undervisning” [High school librarians and the issue of education]. In Bibliotekarerne: en profession i et felt af viden, kommunikation og teknologi [The librarians: A profession in a field of knowledge, communication and technology], edited by Trine Schreiber and Hans Elbeshausen, 175–208. Frederiksberg: Forlaget Samfundslitteratur.

Margo Pickworth and Jenny Uther

10 Teacher Librarians and the Australian 10 Professional Standards for Teachers

10 Teacher Librarians and the Australian Professional Standards for Teachers

Abstract: In Australia, a formal teacher certification process has been introduced, based on the recently developed Australian Professional Standards for Teachers. In this chapter, the authors describe their experiences as teacher librarians completing one of the higher levels of this certification process. This experience has motivated them to provide support and guidance for teacher librarians in evaluating their practice and in seeking national certification. Underpinning their actions has been the awareness that promotion and participation in the process not only raises the level of awareness and credibility of teacher librarians within individual schools; it also advances the status of teacher librarians across Australia. An important result of their work has been the development and publication, in collaboration with a national Policy Advisory Project Team, of a set of guidelines aimed at connecting Australian teacher librarians with the new Australian Professional Standards for Teachers. Keywords: Australia; School library education; Teacher librarians; Teaching role of school librarians; Teacher education; Teacher librarian education; Certification; Accreditation; Professional standards for teachers; Professional standards for school librarians.

Background A joint policy statement released by the Australian Library and Information Association (ALIA) and the Australian School Library Association (ASLA) in 2009 emphasises the importance of qualifications for Australian teacher librarians, defining a teacher librarian “as one who holds recognised teaching qualifications and qualifications in librarianship” (ALIA 2009). In Australia, the majority of teacher librarians are qualified teachers who also have postgraduate qualifications in teacher librarianship. To become a qualified teacher, it is necessary to complete a university degree with studies majoring in education. Prospective teachers can also complete studies in education following their undergraduate degree in another field. Two-year part-time or one-year full-time postgraduate qualifications in teacher librarianship are offered at several universities. These courses focus on information literacy and inquiry learning as specialist teach-



10 Teacher Librarians and the Australian Professional Standards for Teachers 

 123

ing subjects as well as deeper aspects of leading and managing a school library. While some workplaces encourage completion of postgraduate qualifications, other schools employ teachers to work in the library without them. Notwithstanding, the ASLA, ALIA Joint Statement seeks to “ensure that the teacher librarian is both an educator and an information manager with integrated understandings from both of the areas” (ALIA 2009). Furthermore, this policy statement also recommends that teacher librarians have a deep understanding of appropriate teaching pedagogies and be able to “model excellent teaching practice”.

AISTL: Excellence in Teaching and School Leadership In 2010 we, along with our classroom colleagues, became aware of the establishment of The Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership (AITSL) which aimed to provide national leadership for the promotion of excellence in the profession of teaching and school leadership. This new organization subsequently collaborated with key education stakeholders around the country to develop the Australian Teacher Performance and Development Framework, which “describes the characteristics of an effective performance and development cycle, including the elements of the cycle that are essential for success and should be implemented in all Australian schools” (AITSL 2012, 4). This performance and development cycle for Australian teachers (including teacher librarians) incorporated the elements of reflection and goal setting, professional practice and learning, and feedback and review. Out of the Australian Teacher Performance and Development Framework emerged a set of professional standards for teachers. Supported and strengthened by the research of Hattie (2003), who confirmed that student learning outcomes are powerfully influenced by teacher effectiveness, the National Professional Standards for Teachers (now rebadged as the Australian Professional Standards for Teachers) were endorsed by all Australian Education Ministers in December 2010 and published in 2011 (AITSL 2011, 2014). These standards describe the professional practice of an effective Australian teacher across four career stages and have been an important foundational step in Australian teacher quality reforms. The standards provide the baseline for professional practice and are contextualized within the aforementioned national teacher performance and development framework. The Australian Professional Standards for Teachers outlines three domains of teaching: professional knowledge, professional practice, and profes-

124 

 Margo Pickworth and Jenny Uther

sional engagement. Each of these three domains is further subdivided into seven standards. The standards detail what Australian teachers should know and be able to demonstrate. In the past two years, Australian teachers, including teacher librarians, have begun to examine the standards and to use them as a benchmark against which to measure and reflect on their own practice and to develop their future professional goals. In addition to this, a process for teacher certification has been developed for four career stages: Graduate, Proficient, Highly Accomplished and Lead. Certification for all teachers at the Graduate and Proficient stages is mandatory, whilst certification at the upper levels of Highly Accomplished and Lead career stages is optional. Teachers undertaking voluntary certification as Highly Accomplished and Lead teachers have the opportunity to earn peer, state and national recognition of excellence in their professional practice. In some states and sectors, such an attainment attracts a pay allowance. Since the introduction of the standards, Australian teachers have begun to familiarize themselves with the descriptors for the standards at each career stage and have been supported in doing so by AITSL, by their state teacher institutes, and by the schools in which they work. AITSL, the national organization, provides support material on their website including documentation, videos and work samples. Each state in Australia also has its own “institute” or regulatory authority which is the first point of contact for teachers regarding certification. They are responsible for record keeping, answering questions and providing support documentation through their websites. Individual schools have also begun to support teachers learning about the standards by engaging in professional discussions as well as appointing suitable mentors to observe teaching practice and compile reports. Since Australian teacher librarians have the dual role of teacher and librarian and are, in general, employed in schools under the same conditions as teachers, the same processes of reflection, goal setting, professional review and certification apply. The challenge for teacher librarians however, is that much of the available support material is focused on the classroom teacher role with limited support for specialist roles within schools, such as that of the teacher librarian. Following the release of the standards, the authors decided to take up the challenge of evaluating our practice as teachers who also work as school librarians. While this process was yet in its infancy, we worked with the New South Wales Institute of Teachers and underwent the rigorous process of accreditation as Highly Accomplished teachers. Throughout this process, our teaching practice was observed and we compiled portfolios of documentary evidence such as teaching programmes, booklists, student work samples, and professional pre-



10 Teacher Librarians and the Australian Professional Standards for Teachers 

 125

sentations. We also obtained references from colleagues in order to demonstrate that we had met the professional standards for teachers in our home state of New South Wales. We were both successful in becoming accredited as Highly Accomplished teachers.

The Challenge of Change Our journey to being accredited as Highly Accomplished teachers had begun in 2010 as we followed the progress of The Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership (AITSL) and watched the development of the Australian Professional Standards for Teachers. Over the past few years, we have worked to contribute to the accomplishment of three aims: –– raise awareness of the Australian Professional Standards for Teachers among Australian teacher librarians; –– promote the national teacher certification processes based on the Australian Professional Standards for Teachers among Australian teacher librarians; and –– develop and publish, in collaboration with a national Policy Advisory Project Team, a set of guidelines aimed at connecting Australian teacher librarians with the Australian Professional Standards for Teachers.

Raising awareness of the standards among teacher librarians Since achieving Highly Accomplished status, we have been advocates both in our own contexts and in wider professional circles. A key focus for us has been to raise awareness of the Australian Professional Standards for Teachers amongst our fellow teacher librarians. These standards describe Highly Accomplished teachers “as highly effective, skilled classroom practitioners who routinely work independently and collaboratively to improve their own practice and the practice of colleagues. They are knowledgeable and active members of the school” who “maximise learning opportunities for their students by understanding their backgrounds and diverse individual characteristics and the impact of those factors on their learning” (AITSL 2014). Our intention has been to support Australian teacher librarians in developing an understanding of the standards, in particular the descriptors for the Highly Accomplished career stage. Based on our experiences, we have been able to see a clear link between the descriptors for the standards at the Highly Accomplished career stage of teaching and the best practices of an experienced teacher librarian. In essence, the Highly

126 

 Margo Pickworth and Jenny Uther

Accomplished teacher/teacher librarian supports, advises, assists, models and works with colleagues in the domains of Professional Knowledge, Professional Practice and Professional Engagement–all actions which describe a Highly Accomplished Australian teacher. These attributes are also reflected in the IFLA School Libraries Guidelines Draft (IFLA 2015, Section 3.5.3) which stresses that “collaboration is an essential part of the school librarian’s work”, as is participation in the “school-wide planning and other leadership teamwork” and the facilitation of “school-wide continuity and cohesiveness through activities such as cross-curriculum inquiry projects and interdisciplinary learning units”. The IFLA Guidelines describe the school librarian as actively promoting the library and supporting teachers through the provision of professional development. Strong emphasis is placed in the IFLA Guidelines (Section 5.8) on the “co-teaching” aspect of the role, which involves collaborative planning, delivery and evaluation of instruction. Many of these attributes can be mapped to the descriptors for the Highly Accomplished career stage in the Australian Professional Standards for Teachers. It is important for Australian teacher librarians to fulfil their roles in supporting a national performance and development culture by using the Australian Professional Standards for Teachers to engage in the same professional reflection and goal setting practices as our classroom colleagues. Again, these perspectives on the teaching role of the teacher librarian are strongly reflected in the IFLA School Library Guidelines Draft (2015, Section 1.5). Section 1.5 of the IFLA School Library Guidelines Draft states that “the most critical condition for an effective school library program is access to a qualified school library professional”. Further to this, the school librarian “needs to have the same level of education and preparation as other leaders in the school”. Consequently we first took action to raise awareness of the Standards for Teachers and of the opportunities to engage in the process of certification at the 2013 Australian School Library Association’s (ASLA) “Biennial Conference: The Curriculum Experience: Connect, Integrate, Lead”. At this conference, we were invited to present a seminar and lead a panel discussion with colleagues. Many questions were raised in relation to the specialized context of the teacher librarian. Those attending the conference were unsure about how they might provide the evidence of practice needed to demonstrate that they were meeting many of these standards, but the national conversation had begun. This conversation was continued with a wider audience of teacher librarians in early 2014 in the form of a webinar entitled “Australian Professional Standards for Teachers: Teacher Librarian Context”. The webinar participants raised similar concerns around appropriate evidence, and we were able to provide more



10 Teacher Librarians and the Australian Professional Standards for Teachers 

 127

detailed examples of the type of context specific evidence that teacher librarians might use to demonstrate the Standards for Highly Accomplished teachers.

Promoting the national certification process among teacher librarians Our second aim was to advocate for teacher librarians to undertake voluntary certification at the career stage of Highly Accomplished. By April 2012, all Australian Education Ministers had endorsed the process of certification of Highly Accomplished and Lead teachers in Australia. This involved using the new Australian Professional Standards for Teachers as a basis for making rigorous and consistent judgments regarding the recognition of teachers at the higher career stages across Australia. By encouraging teachers to reflect on their practice and by providing external feedback, the certification process aims to contribute to the improvement of teachers (including those who work as teacher librarians), with the ultimate goal of improving the educational outcomes for all young Australians. Certification enhances the professionalism of teachers, enabling them to gain recognition for the quality of their teaching and to progress in their careers while remaining in the classroom. Further to this, certification provides an ideal opportunity to evaluate the school library’s programmes and services. As recommended in the IFLA School Library Guidelines Draft (IFLA 2015, Section 6.1), “Evaluation is an essential aspect of implementing school library programs and services”, and gathering evidence from a range of sources such as OPAC (Online Public Access Catalogue) records and student learning products can contribute to this evaluation process. Similar evidence can also be gathered during the certification process for Australian teacher librarians. While the certification process for the higher career stages remains voluntary in many states in Australia, it is anticipated that all teachers, regardless of years of service, will need to undergo certification at the level of Proficient Teacher as a minimum. This will likely require that all teachers undertake ongoing professional development and demonstrate that their professional practice meets the Australian standards. Thus, as the process of certification will affect more and more teachers, it was imperative that our action was reaching as many teacher librarians as possible. Apart from a strong personal commitment, we believed that the process would reaffirm the role of the teacher librarian as essential to the school’s teaching and learning programs in a time where financial and technological change has the potential to lead to the perception that such a role might be seen as dispensable. We also believed that it was an opportunity to become a

128 

 Margo Pickworth and Jenny Uther

leader among teacher colleagues in our own schools through modelling, advising and mentoring, and sharing.

Collaborating to create evidence guides for teacher librarians Since 2012, the authors have also worked as part of a team within the Australian School Library Association (ASLA) to raise awareness of the Standards for Teachers. The Australian School Library Association is the major body representing teacher librarians and school libraries. It aims to establish, review and maintain national standards and guidelines for school library resource services. A key mission for ASLA is to develop, write and publish materials that will promote the development of school library resource services and teacher librarianship. As part of this mission, in 2012 we were invited to participate in a Policy Advisory Project Team to prepare materials to contextualize the new teacher standards and to support the new teacher certification procedures for teacher librarians, thus supplementing the support materials already available on the AITSL website for classroom teachers. The Project Team held regular online meetings in order to compile and publish a series of evidence guides. Initial discussions centred on the Standards of Professional Excellence for Teacher Librarians (ASLA 2004), which guides the practice of teacher librarians in Australia. The aim of the Project team was to link this document with new standards for the Highly Accomplished Teacher career stage. The Policy Advisory Project Team worked together for two years to produce the Evidence Guide for Teacher Librarians in the Highly Accomplished Career Stage, which was published in March 2014; the Evidence Guide for Teacher Librarians in the Proficient Career Stage followed in September 2014 (ASLA 2014a, 2014b). Both documents are available to members of ASLA and are located on their website. A further guide for the Lead career stage is also planned in the near future. At the time of writing the support documents, the authors were also involved in a range of professional activities to further advance our aims, including the publication of a journal article, “Are you a Highly Accomplished Teacher Librarian?” in the ASLA journal Access (Pickworth and Uther 2014). Since the release of these Evidence guides, feedback from the field has suggested that awareness has indeed been raised of the new Australian Professional Standards for Teachers among Australian teacher librarians. There have been numerous requests for these documents, and it has been included on a reading list for postgraduate teacher librarianship studies at Charles Sturt University. Throughout one of the subjects entitled “Introduction to Teacher Librarianship” students are required to reflect on their developing understanding of the role



10 Teacher Librarians and the Australian Professional Standards for Teachers 

 129

through a personal blog. In a comment posted to Marianne Grasso’s “TL Learning Journey” blog on 10 December 2014 one postgraduate teacher librarian student commented (Grasso 2014): I have found the Standards of Professional Excellence for Teacher Librarians (ASLA & ALIA, 2004) and the recently published Evidence Guide for Teacher Librarians in the Highly Accomplished Career Stage (ASLA, 2014) were crucial in my understandings of what an effective teacher librarian is. I will use these documents in the future to assist in formulating my professional goals.

Such feedback affirms that our work has assisted other teacher librarians to make clearer connections to the Standards and that it has encouraged others to think about considering undertaking certification as a Highly Accomplished teacher.

Meeting the Challenges Completing the New South Wales certification process was rigorous and time consuming for us. As the Australian Professional Standards for Teachers have only recently been introduced into Australian schools, the process continues to be both clarified and explored. Many classroom teachers as well as teacher librarians are still unfamiliar with both the Standards and the process, and there remain many questions about how the teacher institutes in each Australian state will handle the certification process. An enormous challenge both for us as we underwent the process, and for members of the Policy Advisory Project Team working in an advisory capacity, was the contextualizing of these standards within the teacher librarian role. Teacher librarians around Australia work in such diverse situations that it was challenging to provide examples of practice that were appropriate in all school library contexts.

Impacts of Our Actions Our work in the area of teacher standards and teacher certification has presented opportunities for both personal and professional learning and growth, as well as for positive outcomes for the teacher librarian profession in Australia. From the personal perspective, undergoing certification as Highly Accomplished teachers in our home state of New South Wales has enabled us to reassess the core roles of the teacher librarian: that of teaching and learning. It has led us to reflect on our practice and to set professional goals for improvement.

130 

 Margo Pickworth and Jenny Uther

We have learned more about ourselves as teachers, and this has inspired and motivated us to take on roles outside our libraries in developing the professional learning and growth of not only our teacher librarian colleagues, but also of our classroom teacher colleagues. Our work in this area has also provided opportunities for professional growth and learning through serving in other professional capacities. Enriching opportunities have included membership on a Moderating Committee for Graduate Level of Certification, working with the New South Wales (NSW) Board of Studies, Teaching and Educational Standards (BOSTES) in the review of evidence guides for NSW teachers, and participation on a panel to assess NSW teachers undergoing certification as Highly Accomplished teachers. Both during and since that time, we have embraced mentoring and advisory leadership roles within our own schools and are frequently asked for professional advice on teacher certification issues. Through sharing our practice, providing mentorship and professional contributions we have raised our profile, not only within our school, but also in wider professional circles. From the broader perspective of the field of teacher librarianship, one result of our actions as both individuals and as part of a national team has been an increased awareness amongst teacher librarians of the Standards as a reflective tool for professional practice. There has also been an increased awareness of the opportunities to undertake voluntary certification at the higher career stages of Highly Accomplished and Lead. An example of this is the qualitative evidence gathered during the 2014 webinar on the Standards, attended by approximately fifty people, which indicated that teacher librarians felt more confident about participating in the discussions that were beginning to occur in their schools around performance and development culture and the purpose of the new standards for teachers. One participant commented that she found the information “very useful – [it] put the standards in the context of the teacher librarian and showed the direction we should aim for”. The work of the ASLA Policy Advisory Project Team, to which we contributed, has resulted in the publication of significant context-specific support documents that provide guidance for Australian teacher librarians in the teacher certification process and also for those undertaking postgraduate studies in teacher librarianship. Furthermore, the process of preparing these documents has provided a replicable example of the effective use of a sub-committee of the national Australian School Library Association to complete an undertaking that has significant value for its members.



10 Teacher Librarians and the Australian Professional Standards for Teachers 

 131

Conclusion As the process of national teacher certification continues to become more widely adopted in Australia, it presents all Australian teacher librarians with unique opportunities to “let our lights shine”. We hope that our colleagues will continue to engage in further discussions on the potential relevance and implications of the national teacher certification process in raising the profile for our profession. Through our actions of promoting, publishing and raising awareness, we are encouraging teacher librarians to follow in our footsteps and to strive to achieve higher levels of teacher certification. By so doing, teacher librarians will raise awareness of their value and credibility in their own schools, and they will continue to advance the profile of teacher librarianship across Australia.

References Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership (AITSL). 2011. National Professional Standards for Teachers. Melbourne: AITSL. http://www.aitsl.edu.au/docs/default-source/ default-document-library/aitsl_national_professional_standards_for_teachers. Accessed on 20 February 2015. Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership (AITSL). 2012. Australian Teacher Performance and Development Framework Fact Sheet. Carlton South, Victoria, Australia: Education Services Australia. Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership (AITSL). 2014. “Highly Accomplished Teachers.” http://www.aitsl.edu.au/australian-professional-standards-for-teachers/ standards/career-stage/highly-accomplished. Accessed on 25 February 2015. Australian Library and Information Association (ALIA). 2009. ALIA-ASLA Statement on Teacher Librarian Qualifications. https://www.alia.org.au/about-alia/policies-standards-andguidelines/alia-asla-statement-teacher-librarian-qualifications. Accessed on 6 January 2015. Australian School Library Association (ASLA). 2004. Standards of professional excellence for teacher librarians. 2004. Kingston, Australia: Australian School Library Association. http://www.asla.org.au/policy/standards.aspx. Accessed on 20 February 2015. Australian School Library Association (ASLA). 2014a. Evidence Guide for Teacher Librarians in the Highly Accomplished Career Stage. Canberra, Australia: Australian School Library Association. Australian School Library Association (ASLA). 2014b. Evidence Guide for Teacher Librarians in the Proficient Career Stage. Canberra, Australia: Australian School Library Association. Grasso, Marianne. 2014. Marianne’s TL Learning Journey. “Critical Reflection” (blog). Posted on 12 October 2014. http://thinkspace.csu.edu.au/marianne/2014/10/12/etl401-criticalreflection/. Accessed on 25 October 2014. Hattie, John. 2003. Teachers Make a Difference: What Is the Research Evidence? Sydney, Australia: New South Wales Department of Education and Training.

132 

 Margo Pickworth and Jenny Uther

IFLA. 2015. IFLA School Library Guidelines Draft. [Draft dated 12 January 2015.] Pickworth, M., and Jenny Uther. 2014. “TLs as Leaders: Are You a Highly Accomplished Teacher Librarian?” Access: Journal of the Australian School Library Association 28(1): 20–25.

Marlene Asselin, Ray Doiron and Alemu Abebe

11 Applying an Ecological Model and 11 Standards for Library Development 11 to Build Literacy in Rural Ethiopian 11 Communities 11 Applying an Ecological Model and Standards for Library Development

Abstract: Throughout the Majority World, scarcity of resources prohibits the development of specialized school libraries; instead, community libraries partner with local schools to “enhance teaching and learning for all” and thus constitute one type of library serving schools today. This chapter describes a training programme for library staff working in community libraries in rural Ethiopia: the 18-month programme convened 50 community librarians from across the country to learn how to design programmes responsive to their particular contexts, enable inclusion, build partnerships, and serve as action researchers. Ongoing monitoring and evaluation was based on evidence of addressing seven standards supporting literacy and learning for all community members. Challenges of adapting standards for a new digital text/family literacy initiative are also described The chapter concludes with discussion of the challenges facing these progressive libraries, lessons learned as well as the need to recognize the complex balance required to establish a strong network of such community libraries with each having both an individual and regional/national identity. Keywords: Ethiopia; Community libraries; Library development; Ecological model; Implementation of standards; Training programmes.

Introduction The recent IFLA statement (2013b), as echoed in the Lyon Declaration (Lyon 2014) on the role of libraries and development emphasises access to information and the work of librarians as agents for development. Similarly, the new IFLA School Library Guidelines Draft (IFLA 2015, Introduction) assert that “School libraries around the world, in their many forms, share common purpose: the enhancement of ‘teaching and learning for all’. Through that purpose, school library personnel advocate for equity of opportunity for all” (5). Throughout the Majority World, scarce resources prohibit the development of specialised school libraries; instead community libraries partner with their local schools to “enhance teaching and learning for all” and thus constitute one of the many forms of libraries serving schools.

134 

 Marlene Asselin, Ray Doiron and Alemu Abebe

Background For over 25 years CODE-Ethiopia (C-E), a non-governmental and not-for-profit organization and partner with the Canadian Organization for Development through Education (CODE), has increased access to books to support literacy and contribute to the creation of literate environments in rural Ethiopia. To date, this organization has established and stocked 97 community libraries (CLs) in remote, rural and under-served regions of the country. These CLs are usually the only library service operating in these areas, and students from local schools are some of the heaviest users. Schools and teachers have very limited resources in Ethiopia, usually only the textbooks required to teach grades and courses. There may be a “school library” but it has few books, no staff, and no space for students. The community library staff works very closely with teachers to support student learning and by developing reading promotion programmes aimed at children and youth. C-E also works with Ministry of Education officials, district administrators and education officers to coordinate distribution of books to schools and to train library staff to initiate library programmes targeting schools, teachers and students. Current CODE-Ethiopia (C-E) library training programmes are conceived in a four-dimensional ecological model: contextual fit; inclusion policies and practices; strategic community partnerships; and continuous action research (Asselin and Doiron 2013; Asselin, Abebe and Doiron 2014). Drawing examples from a comprehensive series of community librarian training workshops, this chapter describes how C-E community libraries apply this ecological model to contribute to the advancement of literacy in rural Ethiopia, specifically through the design of innovative reading promotion and literacy programmes for children, youth and adults. In Ethiopia, the literacy rate for ages 15 – 24 is 55% (UNICEF 2015). Results of the 2010 Early Grade Reading Assessment (EGRA) showed “shocking results in oral reading fluency and comprehension indicating that students are slow readers and do not understand what they read . . . that a significant percentage of children in grade 2 read zero words correctly, . . . and at grade 3 a significant number of children remained non-readers” (USAID 2011, 5). Ethiopia’s goal to join middle-income countries by 2023 will not be possible without improving literacy rates. In response to global literacy goals, numerous projects and levels of reform are being initiated by foreign and local organizations along with government. As this chapter was written, CODE-Ethiopia received funding from the international non-governmental organization (NGO), EIFL (Electronic Information for Libraries), to launch an innovative digital book project. The project addresses the gap in supporting the early years of literacy development through development of



11 Applying an Ecological Model and Standards for Library Development 

 135

much needed local content, local language reading materials, and provision of a programme that complements national early literacy reform. This new project, highlighted later in the chapter, builds on both C-E’s local language publication programme and the commitment to CL’s leadership role in family literacy. Current Ethiopian government initiatives position literacy and lifelong learning as essential elements of community development. National reform in early/ primary school literacy education is under way with new curriculum, new teacher and student materials, and revised teacher training. In addition, national adult literacy programmes have targeted 30 million people to attain functional literacy by 2015. CODE-Ethiopia library programmes influence the success of these policies. Many of the goals of these initiatives are similar to common school library goals such as the enhancement of “teaching and learning for all” and CL staff are committed to developing “equity of opportunity for all” (IFLA 2015, Introduction). The ecological framework outlined in this chapter is consistent with the new guidelines developed by IFLA with input from the International Association for School Librarianship (IASL) and other members of the international school library community. Today, public and community libraries in Africa are conceived as “serving the needs of the majority of the people, especially in developing communities where the provision of information services has become crucial” (Mostert 1998, 72–73). Most important, community libraries “have to be established by the communities themselves” and “information would have to be appropriate to the needs of particular communities, which implies sustained input from them” (Stillwell 1989, 267). A continent-wide push to produce mother-tongue materials means that libraries will be a major place of access for such materials. Despite global trends of hyperconnectivity for information environments (IFLA 2013a), books continue to be the basis for quality education, reading promotion and raising literacy levels. They provide information and inspiration, and underpin the economic, social and cultural development of communities throughout the country. Given the potential pivotal role of libraries in global literacy and education agendas, IFLA (2013b) calls upon all stakeholders “to recognize that libraries, in every part of the world, can be reliable mechanisms for underpinning the delivery of sustainable development programmes”. Krolak, in The Role of Libraries in the Creation of Literate Environments (2005) suggests some practical strategies for the role of libraries as well as explaining why libraries sometimes struggle with that role. The challenge is to pro-actively reach out to the remaining part of the community, for example by visiting them with appropriate reading and literacy materials in their classrooms, families, workplace or other community locations. Another option is to organise

136 

 Marlene Asselin, Ray Doiron and Alemu Abebe

creative and interesting programmes in the library, such as reading and writing competitions, book clubs, author readings, creative writing classes, summer reading programmes, study support, discussion groups, celebrations and festivities, exhibitions or storytelling sessions. Such programmes can also enable adults with low literacy levels, who might have negative memories of formal schooling, to take their first step back into learning.­(UNESCO 2011, 22)

Library staff in C-E’s community library system have been part of a training programme that addresses these types of library roles and activities.

The CODE-Ethiopia Community Librarian Training Programme As part of its community library (CL) initiative, CODE-Ethiopia (C-E) has developed an extensive training programme carrying out workshops to train library staff primarily in management and collection development activities. In its recent phase of library development (2012–2016), C-E has added an extensive training component incorporating the principles and strategies associated with reading promotion and literacy support. This phase of the training programme was developed by the authors of this chapter. The authors have reported elsewhere on the development and implementation of this training programme (see, for example, Asselin and Doiron 2013; Asselin, Abebe and Doiron 2014). We developed a series of three, one-week workshops delivered face-to-face with 50 library staff from different regions of Ethiopia. Workshops focused on skills in library management and developing a comprehensive library programme rooted in principles of reading promotion, literacy support, and increasing the culture for reading. Participants were immersed in an active learning environment working on challenges facing their communities and established explicit implementation goals. After the first set of workshops (November 2012), participants left with detailed tasks to complete by the next set of workshops (April 2013). In April, they brought documentation of their work and shared successes and challenges with their colleagues. Examples of documentation included photographs, working manuals, plans, children’s drawings in response to stories, lists of members in girls’ reading clubs, library signage and displays and production of a local newspaper. Following the second week of workshops, participants embarked with more advanced tasks to complete and document. During the final training week, they engaged with a team of Lead Librarians, individuals designated by their Regional Bureaus of Education for library advocacy work.



11 Applying an Ecological Model and Standards for Library Development 

 137

Planning the Community Library Programme within an Ecological Framework To support the ongoing growth of CL programmes, an ecological framework was proposed by Asselin and Doiron (2013) as a way to position libraries as central players in personal, social, cultural and economic improvement. The framework consists of interrelated and interdependent components: (a) context/environment; (b) inclusion/equity/social justice; (c) partnerships/interactions, and (d) action/research (Figure 11.1). Each component reflects the role and purposes of CLs and provides a framework for the actual day-to-day set of activities and initiatives that form the library programme. In this sense, libraries and library staff must work to be an integral part of their community’s culture, development and identity; they must take up equity issues relevant to their communities through their services and programmes; they must take leadership roles in building connections, collaborations and partnerships with all vital sectors of their community; and they must become lifelong researchers and learners to ensure that their programmes and services bring meaningful change.

Figure 11.1: An Ecological Model for Community Library Development (Asselin and Doiron, 2013)

Using this model as a framework, we now share examples of its application in development of CODE-Ethiopia community libraries.

138 

 Marlene Asselin, Ray Doiron and Alemu Abebe

Context/Environment Libraries have the most impact when they are recognized as key components of a community, both as a physical location close to schools and major community services and as part of community development projects. Strategic positioning enables the programmes and services of community libraries to be interwoven with teachers and students in schools as well as with adult education programmes; with health, women, family and youth organizations; with local government; and with farming and small business sectors. The initial contribution by the local community starts with a building for the library that can accommodate 50–80 readers at a time. The building is expected to meet the minimum standards set by CODE-Ethiopia including location, safety, and availability of nearby schools and community services. The community nominates five people to serve as Library Management Committee members having the roles of resource mobilization, planning, supervision, advisors, preparing work manuals and procedures. They are recruited from the education sector, the culture and tourism bureau, and the students’, women’s and children’s affairs offices in the municipality. The community also contributes to the refurbishment of the library building, pays for utilities, and pays the salaries of the librarians and other staff. These guidelines play out differently in each community depending on resources, leadership and commitment to the concept of a community library. As part of a new initiative to build a more cohesive community library system, Lead Librarians (LLs) were nominated by the Regional Bureau of Education offices and selected from the educational and related institutions available in the major regions. CODE-Ethiopia uses its cadres of LLs at the six education regional bureaus with specific roles of coordinating, mobilizing, monitoring, evaluating, creating partnerships, training, sensitizing, and advocating on behalf of CLs with the close supervision and support rendered by CODE-Ethiopia.

Equity, Inclusion and Social Justice Libraries have a fundamental commitment to inclusion and responsiveness to changing social and political values. Community libraries support and encourage the emerging values by organizing new materials for the collection, building programmes that include all people and operating a facility that is welcoming and inclusive. “The core activities of library and information services for culturally and linguistically diverse communities are central, not ‘separate’ or ‘additional’,



11 Applying an Ecological Model and Standards for Library Development 

 139

and should always be designed to meet local or specific needs” (IFLA 2009). Examples of how C-E community librarians learned to address equity, inclusion and social justice are finding ways within their programmes to: (a) provide girls and women and their children with opportunities for literacy and learning; and (b) use local-language materials to promote reading and support a culture for reading. The CLs in Ethiopia have been playing a key role in promoting the use of libraries by girls. Community librarians learned how to set up special times for “girls-only” in the library including arranging appropriate safety and security. Girls’ book clubs are being established, and rules and promotions in the CL support girls’ interests and needs. Coupled with the general emphasis on education has been the push for indigenous language materials for teaching and learning. Uniquely in Africa, primary-school children in many parts of Ethiopia receive instruction in their birth language until grade 8 when instruction shifts to English. CODE-Ethiopia has responded to the push for local-language materials through its extensive publishing programme. Over 500 titles are published in six local languages and distributed to schools and local CLs. Children enjoy these books and find comfort in reading novels and information in their local language. During the training workshops, community librarians’ limited knowledge of their local-language collection was expanded by providing silent reading time for each group to read and discuss the books amongst themselves. Silent reading is a foundation of promoting a reading culture, practising reading, and responding to the ideas and stories in social settings. They also learned and practised the staple pedagogical methods of read-alouds, shared reading and choral reading, including how to introduce a book to children, engaging them in fluent and meaningful reading, and guiding their comprehension and interpretation of the book. Finally, they learned how to help students use tools for locating information within local-language reference books (e.g., table of contents, glossary, index, headings) as well as how to help students use features of these texts to comprehend (e.g., emboldened words, graphics and illustrations, finding word meaning without going to a dictionary). Using C-E books meant that community librarians could support development of important literacy skills for all children and youth in meaningful linguistic contexts.

140 

 Marlene Asselin, Ray Doiron and Alemu Abebe

Partnerships/Interactions As an integral part of the community working to meet the needs and interests of its members, library staff in CLs must re-frame their identity and role from guardians and authorities of resources to that of learners, leaders, promoters and researchers. Who is the community served by the library? What are the needs and interests in the community, including individuals, sectors, and organizations? Community librarians take leadership in building community connections and demonstrate how the library plays a vital role in education and community development. However, they cannot do this alone. They must forge meaningful partnerships and collaborate with community leaders, municipal and district officials, school principals and teachers, parents and other adults within their communities. Key targets for building these relationships are local teachers in primary and secondary schools. In many areas of the country, there are split school days where one half of the population attends school in the morning and the other half in the afternoon. This allows students the chance to use the CL in either the morning or the afternoon. The library staff also makes connections with teachers showcasing what the CL can do for them and their students.

Action/Research As described above, CODE-Ethiopia community librarians are taking new actions built on partnerships, equity and ensuring a safe learning environment. This requires interaction with community members to identify questions, topics and problems to be solved, trying out responses to community needs with materials and programmes, developing action plans, seeking feedback on the actions taken and revising the action plan in a continuous cycle of reflection, planning, and action. Community librarians must document their activities, share results with the community, and identify new ways to build their library programmes, a cycle affirmed by other effective African community libraries (Parry 2009). One key way that community librarians can proactively build their effectiveness is to hold regular meetings with their Library Management Committee, whose job it is to monitor on-going progress, address concerns and develop strategies for sustaining and growing the CL. In some cases, the Management Committee starts out strongly but, as personnel change and needs shift, there can be a weakening of its effectiveness. Throughout the training programme, C-E community librarians learned ways to keep that Committee actively involved by sharing



11 Applying an Ecological Model and Standards for Library Development 

 141

successes with each other, applying principles learned from workshop leaders to their own contexts, and drawing up specific plans to take back to their libraries. During the training programme, representatives from Library Management Committees across the country were brought to Addis Ababa for in-depth training about their roles and to develop strategies for improving their CLs. One of the major themes emerging from this training was the need for an organized professional network to continue to support local CLs. A consensus of opinion across the group resulted in appointing the 11 Lead Librarians to serve as organizing committee members. Follow-up activities are now unfolding as this national association takes form. Throughout this series of workshops, participants learned the importance of identifying a need, developing a strategy to address that need, trying some new activities, evaluating how well things went and then adjusting plans for improved success. This action model proved empowering to the participants with a growing sense of their emerging professionalism evident in their confidence and excitement about their role and the role of a CL. A key instrument for the community librarians’ action research was a set of seven standards, created by the authors, that align with the ecological framework. Indicators and rubrics structured the action research so that participants could mark progress over the training programme. Along with completing the tracking sheets for sessions 2 and 3, participants were responsible for providing evidence of all attempts to address the standards throughout the entire training programme. Table 11.1 lists the standards by order that they were introduced, and the Appendix to this chapter details the standards and tracking sheets. Table 11.1: Seven standards for community library programmes Standard Number

Standard Focus

1

Participants demonstrate an understanding of the role of the library and the librarian in the community. Participants create a detailed plan for a reading promotion programme. Participants use CODE-Ethiopia Books effectively in the reading promotion programme. Participants include activities for girls/women and families in the reading promotion programme. Participants monitor and share successes from the reading promotion programme. Participants demonstrate an understanding of how the librarian works with the school and with students and teachers for reading promotion and literacy support. Participants complete a variety of literacy activities in the community library.

2 3 4 5 6 7

142 

 Marlene Asselin, Ray Doiron and Alemu Abebe

Staff in almost all the libraries had completed activities that showed their understanding of the role of the library within their community (standard 1). They produced detailed yearly plans (standard 2) and took pictures that show the use of C-E local language books (standard 3). In a variety of ways, they displayed how they designed separate programmes for girls, women and families (standard 4). As well, multiple types of data showed the increase in reading promotion activities (standard 5) completed since the last set of workshops. By the end of the training programme, most of the libraries had started connections with schools and other organizations in their respective localities (standard 6). Finally, all community librarians provided evidence of activities done in relation to adult and child literacy programmes (standard 7) (Abebe 2013a, 2013b).

Discussion and Final Thoughts By designing library programmes based on an ecological model of community libraries and by applying a comprehensive set of standards, CODE-Ethiopia CLs now have a common framework to develop meaningful and effective local library programmes. The emphasis throughout this training programme has been to move the services and programme offered in the community library away from only being a study hall for students but to serve both teachers and students as a teaching and learning centre connected to the school curriculum and linked to developing literacy skills and positive reading habits. The IFLA Guidelines for School Libraries also provide common principles and effective strategies that easily apply in the CL context. Embracing Krolak’s (2005), Mostert’s (1998) and Stilwell’s (1989) vision of community libraries in underserved areas, and taking up the challenge to “pro-actively reach out to the community” (UNESCO 2011, 22), C-E community librarians have learned how to (a) support adults including women and their children through the use of meaningful purposes and local-language materials; and (b) build connections with schools, with health organizations, with women- and community-based organizations, with government, with faith-based organizations and with other community groups to support both Ethiopian and global literacy goals. These libraries and their innovative programmes in turn support nation-wide reading promotion projects where children and young people from every corner of the country gain access to reading and curriculum-support learning materials.



11 Applying an Ecological Model and Standards for Library Development 

 143

Lessons Learned The programmes described in this chapter are encumbered by many challenges, including access to meaningful resources and the perilously low literacy rates in the rural areas where C-E libraries are established. There continues to be what some Ethiopian leaders suggest is a “book famine” in these CLs, but the library staff and their regional library leaders recognize the value and purpose of a CL, they recognize how their CL is a unique and vital part of their community, they know how it can contribute to personal and community development for male and female adults and all children and youth, they know they must harness the skills and resources of all community partners to build and develop their library, and they know how they must react to community needs and build library programmes that meet those needs. Valuable resources such as UNESCO’s Creating and Sustaining Literate Environments (2011) provide beginning guidance but must be adapted to local cultures, practices, and resource availability. The IFLA Guidelines for School Libraries Draft (2015) also offers a foundational framework for CLs as they take up the “leadership for learning” role for students in local schools. Ethiopia has few guiding documents that library leaders and local library staffs can use to move library services and programmes forward. During the training, community librarians learned how to effectively use resources beyond just having them available for independent use. However, demand far surpasses supply. Production and provision of digital local-language, local-content materials promises one avenue of meeting the access challenge. In order to start to meet the challenges of establishing digital library programmes, C-E has a new project funded through EIFL in which CLs will be supplied with computers and data projectors to present books for preschool children and their families. CODE Ethiopia’s pre-school literacy project was one of ten public and community library projects from Africa, Europe and Latin America awarded grants in 2014 to develop services that use information and communication technology to serve the needs of children and youth (EIFL 2014) Six books have been locally written and illustrated and published in both print and PDF form by C-E. The texts are original and adapted local stories and songs, and they have been translated into the major local languages of C-E’s publishing programme. Target groups for the project are families with young children that support early reading habits and skills. Library staffs in the three pilot sites have received training in using the technologies as well as strategies and a programme for supporting families and early literacy. At the end of the family literacy sessions (spring 2015), participating communities will each create two books resulting in 12 local-content, local-language early-reading texts suitable for print or digital access.

144 

 Marlene Asselin, Ray Doiron and Alemu Abebe

As noted above, the Ethiopian government is in the midst of comprehensive initiatives to improve literacy levels in the early grades. This means community librarians need to advance their own literacy and be educated about literacy development and education. They need to look outside their own communities to understand how library programmes are developed in international contexts so they can adapt innovative ideas to their contexts and create library programmes in sync with a global library vision. There is no national library association of any kind in Ethiopia so front-line library staff have few sources that provide important connections and on-going professional support. This underscores the essential role of international school library documents such as the IFLA Guidelines for School Libraries which provides direction and strategies for library development. International library organizations of all kinds need to continue their efforts to support all types of libraries while remaining cognizant of the realities that face library staff in places like Ethiopia. The ecological framework for community library programmes presented here is embedded in the envisioned role of community libraries as agents of individual and social/economic change (Asselin and Doiron 2013; IFLA 2013b; Namhila and Niskala 2013). This is not a singular role of the library in any community, but as discussed above, is fully dependent on being an integral player in the local and the larger country’s communities (Williment 2009). This is a complex and sophisticated undertaking which needs to be conceived, carried out, and heard as a collective including the individual librarian, the regional network and the national body. Even then, effects will be uneven because – as articulated in the ecological framework – contexts will vary on the extent to which social and economic change is overtly and covertly valued. No single training programme and no one library programme will be a onesize-fits-all, even within a country. We argue that the ecological approach permits a progressive re-visioning of the role of community libraries (and we suggest it could equally be applied to the role of school libraries) contributing to broader social and economic change but allowing for flexibility and respect for their unique contexts, their differing access to the quantity and quality of resources, and the factors affecting the commitments of their community organizations to change and form partnerships. Enlivening librarians of all types as lifelong learners and action researchers within their own communities or schools allows them to meaningfully assess and improve how they support the literacy and learning of all children, youth and adults.



11 Applying an Ecological Model and Standards for Library Development 

 145

References Abebe, Alemu. 2013a. Report on the Third Phase Library Training Workshop (November 4–8, 2013). Addis Ababa: CODE-Ethiopia. Abebe, Alemu. 2013b. Results of the Monitoring and Evaluation in the New Community Libraries: A Synthesis Report. Addis Ababa: CODE-Ethiopia. Asselin, Marlene, Alemu Abebe and Ray Doiron. 2014. “Applying an Ecological Model for Library Development to Build Literacy in Rural Ethiopian Communities.” Paper presented at IFLA World Library and Information Congress, 16–22 August, Lyon, France. http://library.ifla. org/870/. Accessed on 15 January 2015. Asselin, Marlene and Ray Doiron. 2013. Linking Literacy and Libraries in Global Communities. London: Ashgate. Electronic Information for Libraries (EIFL). 2014. Ten new library services for children and youth. http://www.eifl.net/news/ten-new-library-services-children-and-youth. Accessed on 21 February 2015. IFLA. 2009. IFLA/UNESCO Multicultural Library Manifesto. http://www.ifla.org/node/8954. Accessed on 6 March 2015. IFLA. 2013a. “IFLA Trend Report.” http://trends.ifla.org/. Accessed on 21 February 2015. IFLA. 2013b. “IFLA Statement on Libraries and Development.” http://www.ifla.org/publications/ ifla-statement-on-libraries-and-development . Accessed on 21 February 2015. IFLA. 2015. IFLA School Library Guidelines Draft. [Draft dated 12 January 2015.] Krolak, Lisa. 2005. The Role of Libraries in the Creation of Literate Environment: Background paper prepared for the Education for All Global Monitoring Report 2006 Literacy for Life, Hamburg: UNESCO Institute for Education. http://www.ifla.org/publications/the-role-oflibraries-in-the-creation-of-literate-environments. Accessed on 6 March 2015. Lyon. 2014. “The Lyon Declaration on Access to Information and Development.” http://www. lyondeclaration.org/. Accessed on 6 March 2015. Mostert, Janneke. 1998. “Community Libraries: The Concept and Its Application with Particular Reference to a South African Community Library System.” International Information & Library Review 30: 71–85. Namhila, Eellen Ndeshi and Niskala, Ritva. 2013. “Libraries Supporting National Development Goals in Namibia.” IFLA Journal, 39(1): 58–69. http://ifl.sagepub.com/content/39/1/58. full.pdf+html Accessed on 21 February 2015. Parry, Kate. 2009. “The Story of a Library: Research and Development in an African Village.” Teachers College Record 111(9): 2127–2147. Stilwell, Christine. 1989. “Community Libraries: A Brief Review of their Origins and Nature with Particular Reference to South Africa.” Journal of Librarianship and Information Science 21(4): 260–269. doi:10.1177/096100068902100403. Accessed on 21 February 2015. Stilwell, Christine. 2011. Poverty, Social Exclusion, and the Potential of South African Public Libraries and Community Centres. Libri 61(1): 50–66. doi:10.1515/libr.2011.005. Accessed on 21 February 2015. UNESCO. 2011. Creating and Sustaining Literate Environments. UNESCO Bangkok Asia and Pacific Regional Bureau for Education: Bangkok. http://unesdoc.unesco.org/ images/0021/002146/214653E.pdf. Accessed on 21 February 2015. UNICEF. 2015. UNICEF Data: “Monitoring the Situation of Children and Women: Ethiopia.” http:// data.unicef.org/countries/ETH. Accessed on 6 March 2015.

146 

 Marlene Asselin, Ray Doiron and Alemu Abebe

USAID. 2011. Draft Statement of Work for Comment: Reading for Ethiopia’s Achievement Developed (READ) Technical Assistance Project. https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunit y&mode=form&id=6141842a5847aa7dd117ca59e4f2a82b&tab=core&_cview=1. Accessed on 21 February 2015. Williment, Kenneth. 2009. “It Takes a Community to Create a Library.” Partnership: the Canadian Journal of Library and Information Practice and Research 4(1): 1–10. http:// http://journal.lib.uoguelph.ca/index.php/perj/article/viewFile/545/1477. Accessed on 21 February 2015.

Appendix Standards and Tracking Sheets for Evidence-based Monitoring, Assessing and Evaluating Development of Ecologically Based Community Library Programmes Community Library/Reading Room: Location:

Date:

Standard 1: Participants demonstrate an understanding of the role of the library and the librarian in the community. Indicators: 1.1 Has posted in the library a statement of purpose for the library. 1.2 Has made presentations to community groups about the library. 1.3 Has created a weekly timetable to show a balance of time on management and on programme. 1.4 Has examples of how the librarian has matched library services to the varied needs of groups and individuals in the community. Rubric: Has completed one (1) of the expected indicators:

Has completed two (2) of the expected indicators:

Has completed three (3) of the expected indicators:

Has completed all four (4) of the expected indicators:

Library statement posted

Library statement posted

Library statement posted

Library statement posted

Made presentations

Made presentations

Made presentations

Made presentations

Balanced timetable

Balanced timetable

Balanced timetable

Balanced timetable

Matched services to needs

Matched services to needs

Matched services to needs

Matched services to needs



11 Applying an Ecological Model and Standards for Library Development 

 147

Note: Please attach a copy (or a photograph) of your statement of the library purpose. Please describe the presentations you made to community groups. Please show us an example of your weekly timetable. Please share an example of how you matched services with the needs someone in the community. Standard 2: Participants create a detailed plan for a reading promotion programme. Indicators: 2.1 Has completed plans for CODE-Ethiopia Reading Week. 2.2 Has a variety of reading promotion activities. 2.3 Has included community groups in the plans. 2.4 Has the local school involved in reading promotion. Rubric: Has completed one (1) of the expected indicators:

Has completed two (2) of the expected indicators:

Has completed three (3) of the expected indicators:

Has completed all four (4) of the expected indicators:

Reading Week

Reading Week

Reading Week

Reading Week

Variety of activities

Variety of activities

Variety of activities

Variety of activities

Include community groups

Include community groups

Include community groups

Include community groups

Worked with schools

Worked with schools

Worked with schools

Worked with schools

Note: Photographs are welcome. Please describe your Reading Week promotion. Please provide examples of the variety of activities you developed. Please show how community groups were included. Please show how schools were included Standard 3: Participants use CODE-Ethiopia Books effectively in the reading promotion programme. Indicators: 3.1 Has developed an activity with CODE-Ethiopia Big Books. 3.2 Has developed an activity with CODE-Ethiopia Fiction Books. 3.3 Has developed an activity with CODE-Ethiopia Curriculum Supplement Books. 3.4 Has displayed and showcased CODE-Ethiopia books in the library.

148 

 Marlene Asselin, Ray Doiron and Alemu Abebe

Rubric: Has completed one (1) of the expected indicators:

Has completed two (2) of the expected indicators:

Has completed three (3) of the expected indicators:

Has completed all four (4) of the expected indicators:

Big Books activity

Big Books activity

Big Books activity

Big Books activity

Fiction Books activity

Fiction Books activity

Fiction Books activity

Fiction Books activity

Curriculum Books activity

Curriculum Books activity

Curriculum Books activity

Curriculum Books activity

Prominent display of CODE-Ethiopia books

Prominent display of CODE-Ethiopia books

Prominent display of CODE-Ethiopia books

Prominent display of CODE-Ethiopia books

Note: Describe your activity with CODE-Ethiopia Big Books. Describe your activity with CODE-Ethiopia Fiction Books. Describe your activity with CODE-Ethiopia Curriculum Supplement Books. Please take a photograph of your display for CODE-Ethiopia Books. Standard 4: Participants include activities for girls/women and families in the reading promotion programme. Indicators: 4.1 Has specific reading promotion activities for girls/women. 4.2 Has specific reading promotion activities for families. Rubric: Has completed one (1) reading promotion activity for girls/ women.

Has completed two (2) reading promotion activities for girls/ women.

Has completed three (3) reading promotion activities for girls/ women.

Has completed four (4) or more reading promotion activities for girls/women.

Has completed one Has completed two (1) reading promotion (2) reading promotion activity for families. activities for families.

Has completed three (3) reading promotion activities for families.

Has completed four (4) or more reading promotion activities for families.

Note: Please describe the reading promotion activities you did for girls/women. Photographs are welcome. Please describe the reading promotion activities you did for families. Photographs are welcome.



11 Applying an Ecological Model and Standards for Library Development 

 149

Standard 5: Participants monitor and share successes from the reading promotion programme. Indicators: 5.1 Has documented their reading promotion activities. 5.2 Has publicly shared with the community the success of their reading promotion programme. 5.3 Has submitted one idea to CODE-Ethiopia for the Sutafe publication. 5.4 Has involved the Management Committee in assessing their reading promotion programme. Rubric: Has completed one (1) of the expected indicators:

Has completed two (2) of the expected indicators:

Has completed three (3) of the expected indicators:

Has completed four (4) of the expected indicators:

Documented the programme

Documented the programme

Documented the programme

Documented the programme

Publicly shared

Publicly shared

Publicly shared

Publicly shared

Sutafe

Sutafe

Sutafe

Sutafe

Assessed programme with Management Committee

Assessed programme with Management Committee

Assessed programme Assessed programme with Management with Management Committee Committee

Note: Photographs are welcome. Please show how you are documenting your successes. Show how you publicly shared your successes. Show how the Management Committee was involved.

Tracking Sheet: Literacy (Reading) Activities Standard 6: Participants demonstrate an understanding of how the librarian works with the school and with students and teachers for reading promotion and literacy support.

Community Library/Reading Room: Location:

Reading Room Attendant:

150 

 Marlene Asselin, Ray Doiron and Alemu Abebe

Please fill in the chart as you complete each activity: Activity

Date Completed

Evidence (Examples include: photographs, samples, descriptions, handouts, signs, children’s work, community comments etc.)

Met with head of the school and teachers to discuss how the community library can support students and teachers Made a presentation to a school group about the library. Organised an activity in the library for young children. Organised an activity in the library for older students.

Tracking Sheet: Literacy (Reading) Activities Standard 7: Participants complete a variety of literacy activities in the community library.

Community Library/Reading Room: Location:

Reading Room Attendant:

Please fill in the chart as you complete each activity: Activity

Has completed a read aloud activity with students from school. Has completed a read aloud activity with parents and children.

Date Completed

Evidence (Examples include: photographs, samples, descriptions, handouts, signs, children’s work etc.)



11 Applying an Ecological Model and Standards for Library Development 

Has completed a reading activity using a BIG BOOK with students. Has completed an activity teaching study skills or reference skills. Has created several displays to highlight particular types of books.

 151

Part 5 Developing Guidelines for the Teaching Part 5 Role of the School Librarian

Florian Reynaud, Martine Ernoult, Danielle Martinod, Magali Bon and Valérie Glass Florian Reynaud et al.

12 Developing a Curriculum in 12 Information and Documentation 12 for Secondary Schools in France

12 Developing a Curriculum in Information and Documentation

Abstract: The FADBEN is the national association of professeurs documentalistes (librarian school teachers) in France. The professional association sees in the implementation of a curriculum in information and documentation the achievement of a triple convergence: firstly, epistemological, with the synthesis of information, media and digital educations; secondly, professional, in contributing to the training and self-training of the professeurs documentalistes; and thirdly, operational, in programming the implementation of this teaching. The aim of this chapter is to clarify the French context and to develop the idea of instructional resources, before detailing some tangible ways to define a curriculum in information and documentation, as a coherent set of content and learning situations implemented in a specific progression. Keywords: France; FADBEN; Information literacy; Media and information literacy; Curriculum development; School library education; Learning standards; Competence of the school librarian; Teaching role of school librarians.

The Mission Statement and the Evolution of Practice in France The Féderation des Enseignants Documentalistes de l’Education nationale (FADBEN), the national association of professeurs documentalistes (librarian school teachers) in France, advocates for the teaching role of the professeurs documentalistes. In the French context, this means emphasising education in the media and the information, in order to contribute to the success of all students, the citizens of tomorrow. This aligns with international trends for developing the teaching capabilities of school librarians. The FADBEN, founded in 1972, has contributed for 40 years to the thinking on school knowledge in information and documentation and to the development of educational content and teaching methods. In the context of the “knowledge society” supported by UNESCO, where informational acculturation should promote social, cultural, and professional enculturation of individuals, education in media and information pro-

156 

 Florian Reynaud et al.

vides an initial response to the essential issues in digital context. The professeurs documentalistes aim at educating students as future citizens, independent and responsible in informational, media, and digital environments. Since 1989, in France, school librarians, called ‘professeurs documentalistes,’ have been recruited as teachers. They must attain a certificat d’aptitude au professorat de l’enseignement du second degré (CAPES), the certificate necessary to teach in secondary schools in France. New additions related to teacher librarian duties, included in the July 2013 Act, confirm the political will that a specific teaching mission be given to them (Ministère de l’Education nationale 2013). The FADBEN, along with trade unions and the French Ministry of Education, had a major role in the creation of the CAPES, consistent with the important place of their educational mission in their 1986 mission statement. The missions of the professeur documentaliste as defined in their 1986 Mission Statement are to provide initiation and training to all students to access, evaluate and use information in the documentation center he/she is in charge of. His/her action “is closely linked to the educational activity of the school”; he/she “participates in the cultural initiatives of the school”; and he/she “is responsible for the multimedia resources centre” (Ministère de l’Éducation nationale 1986). In 1989, a report attached to the Law on Education acknowledged that “the high level of skill required by the technical and pedagogical tasks of school librarians makes it necessary to create an appropriate status for the position. Recruitment for the position needed to be done by a specific CAPES” (Ministère de l’Education nationale 1989). The need for a certificate of aptitude for secondary education is an essential step, as well as the obligation to implement a Centre de Documentation et d’Information (CDI) in each school. However, in the years after the establishment of the CAPES, actively supported and encouraged by the FADBEN, the Mission Statement texts have not been updated, while educational issues as well as pedagogical practices have evolved. In the 1990s, in accordance with these changes, the FADBEN contributed to the thinking on the foundations of information teaching, that is, how to develop students’ abilities to access and to use information. Also the FADBEN began to highlight informational culture as content to develop in school. In 1997, the Association published a Référentiel de compétences élèves [A reference table of information literacy skills] to define a corpus of school knowledge in information and documentation (FADBEN 1997). This work consisted of highlighting research skills to acquire, with different levels of control depending on the grade level and age of the students, helping professeurs documentalistes to build pedagogical projects. The process for pedagogical projects starts from the definition of the objective of the research to the evaluation of the global process: questioning the



12 Developing a Curriculum in Information and Documentation 

 157

topic, gathering information from accurate sources, creating and evaluating the final product. In 2007, in the FADBEN publication Mediadoc, 64 ideas or concepts were established in a framework of seven main ideas (Information; Document; Indexation; Source; Informational space; Information research; Information usage), in order to help the professeurs documentalistes to formalize their teaching. The objective of this corpus is to provide instructional sessions that make students able to build knowledge. This corpus provides a progressive tool that serves to develop pedagogical projects. In the July 2013 Act, the status of professeurs documentalistes as being part of teaching staff was reaffirmed in the Référentiel des compétences professionnelles des métiers du professorat et de l’éducation [Reference System attached to the teaching professions] (Ministère de l’Education nationale 2013). Some specific skills related to professeurs documentalistes’ practice are listed there, in addition to the skills they share with all teachers. This text does not replace the 1986 Mission Statement, but it does introduce some changes. It first recalls that professeurs documentalistes are “full members of the teaching and educational team” with a specific skill to “create, implement and facilitate teaching and learning situations considering diversity of students”. They “are responsible for the centre of documentation and information, an area dedicated to training, reading, and access to culture and information”, and they “contribute to the formation of all students in media and information literacy”. As teachers, they can interact “directly with students in training and learning activities from their own initiative or according to the needs expressed by teachers in a discipline”. The main skills required for professeurs documentalistes are to master the knowledge and the skills specific to media and information literacy, to implement the school documentary policy they help in defining, and to be responsible for the documentation centre and the dissemination of information within the school. They also contribute to the opening of the school to its educational, cultural and professional environment, on every level (local and regional, national, European and international). Indeed the July 2013 Act claims the necessity of a specific knowledge associated with information and medias: the professeur documentaliste could be in charge of this teaching. This specific knowledge is built on instructional resources chosen and organized by the professeur documentaliste. New additions related to teacher librarian duties, included in the July 2013 Act, confirm the political will of a specific teaching mission given to them. These texts meet the claims the FADBEN has expressed since 1989 and give a real value to the work developed in 1997 and 2007, with the impetus to go further.

158 

 Florian Reynaud et al.

The CDI as an Educational and Learning Place Centres of documentation and information (CDI) have been at the heart of the learning process for a very long time. The circular of 23 October 1952 put the SDI (Service of Documentation and Information) as central to the teaching act. In the 1970s, the service of documentation and information (SDI) was redefined and called CDI. In the French schools, the CDI has undergone a great number of changes since the 1990s. It has regularly been re-visited, and it is now structured as a place dedicated to cross-disciplinary pedagogical practices (FADBEN 2009). The architecture of the CDI is planned for access to the resources and instructional space. This evolution takes into account the fact that more personal work is required from students, along with new educational requests for more teamwork and for information research. The CDI is more than a traditional school library; it is an instructional resources centre where professeurs documentalistes can teach and promote reading and learning, to students. French professeurs documentalistes are specifically trained to teach and to implement the knowledge associated with the educational contents of information, and documentation, as well as with a specific role in teaching media and new media. The professeur documentaliste has a pedagogical role with provided tools, and can develop students’ critical thinking about tools, media and information. Resources, such as location, material resources, printed and electronic resources, become instructional tools to the professeurs documentalistes, and educational tools to students. In this sense, the French CDI, in accordance with the IFLA School Libraries Guidelines Draft (2015), needs to be provided with an administrative area, a study and research area, an informal reading area and a media production and group project area, as well as “an instructional space – space with seats catering for small groups, large groups and whole classroom formal instruction, with appropriate instructional technology and display space (seating for 10% of the student population is often recommended)” (Section 4.2.2). The autonomy of the students should be taken as an aim, not as a starting point. A school library relies on a complex balance between a place of documentation and information, access to culture, and a place of learning to master the tools of access to information. For each pupil, informal learning and educational support imply formal learning for efficiency. For years, the FADBEN has worked with local authorities in charge of buildings and community facilities to give advice related to the building and the setting up of a CDI in a new school. Nowadays, that advice has to take into account teaching and learning in the CDI space. Informational environments are indeed one



12 Developing a Curriculum in Information and Documentation 

 159

of the seven main media concepts, as highlighted in 2007. These physical spaces and resources within the school, associated with informational environments, are primarily “learning spaces”, in accordance with the IFLA School Libraries Guidelines Draft (2015, Section 1.2), providing access to virtual or digital spaces. Websites that are accessible from search engines or directories and databases used for information and documentary researches are also instructional spaces where professeurs documentalistes should develop the students’ knowledge and skills in terms of information and documentation. Then, as a priority, the CDI “operates within a school as a teaching and learning center that provides an active instructional program integrated into curriculum content”, with emphasis on resource-based, thinking-based and knowledge-based capabilities, reading and literacy capabilities, and learning management capabilities (IFLA 2015, Section 1.4). Professeurs documentalistes organize the physical and digital collections, resources and tools and provide services that contribute to the students’ learning process. Running a CDI may also require other staff to improve informal uses of the space and resources. It is, finally, essential that other teachers have some time in their initial training to learn what the CDIs are, to see how they have changed from their own school time, with a focus on their use as a resource, as well as the possibilities of collaboration with professeurs documentalistes who often act alone in front of groups or in front of a whole classroom. “Collaboration is essential to providing media and information literacy instruction that is integrated into the curriculum and is connected with students’ interests and needs”, according to the IFLA School Libraries Guidelines Draft (2015, Section 5.8).

Towards a Curriculum in Information and Documentation Nowadays the FADBEN’s work towards establishing the standard of a curriculum in information and documentation is reflected, firstly, in a collaborative platform, called “Info-Doc Wikinotions” (FADBEN 2015), and secondly, in an attempt at writing the curriculum. The focus of the FADBEN’s work is to offer a curriculum in information and documentation which permits a national instructional consistency in information and documentation learnings, associated with EMI (Education in Media and Information) which has been recognized and enshrined in French law from July 2013. The lack of national frameworks, that is, the lack of a specific curriculum or programme sets limits to teaching, according to both the FADBEN and to the the IFLA School Libraries Guidelines Draft (2015, Section 1.5),

160 

 Florian Reynaud et al.

Instructional models are necessary in the development of students’ information literacy (Section 5.5). The FADBEN calls for the implementation of a curriculum in information and documentation that defines the concepts to be transmitted and that determines their implementation in a progression of learnings, along with their evaluation. The professional association is convinced of the necessity of this progressive learning as a logic of discovery, an initiation and a thorough analysis, for a true acquisition of knowledge and skills by the students. Formalizing a curriculum in information and documentation should also help to promote the acquisition of a professional culture because this plan deals with pedagogical approaches, as well as activities and instructional reference objects or different forms of assessment knowledge. It may also be the occasion of an important time to share practices, and to gain from each other’s teaching models and methods. The FADBEN’s curriculum proposals are based on practical knowledge as well as theories that have already been developed in the field of information and communication sciences research. The foundations of such a curriculum were initiated by the FADBEN in 2003. Since then, discussions have carried on. In 2010, the contribution of the Groupe de Recherche sur la Culture et la Didactique de l’Information (GRCDI), [Research Group on Information Literacy and Information Instruction], provided a curriculum specifically based on twelve proposals (GRCDI 2010). The existence of a curriculum in information and documentation requires constructing a catalogue of references and resources constituting the curriculum, to carry on the reflection about the specific notions started in 2007. This work has a new impetus with the FADBEN Info-Doc Wikinotions, in which academic and school teachers are invited to participate. This project aims at updating the corpus of knowledge, assembling educational activities, as well as providing an exhaustive list of scientific and professional references on the subject. These references can develop definitions of concepts considered as essential, definitions for students rather than professionals, in order to facilitate the educational and pedagogical work of teacher librarians. For each concept, there are a number of features with a beginner level and an advanced level. For example, for the important notion of evaluation of information, two definitions are recorded (Table 12.1).



12 Developing a Curriculum in Information and Documentation 

 161

Table 12.1: Evaluation of information Level of the definition

Definition

Beginner level

The evaluation of information consists of assigning a value to information, with different criteria of assessment. The evaluation of information consists of assigning a value to in­for­ma­ tion, with personal criteria of assessment. It is based on a com­pa­rative study of the sources, and it varies from one person to the other.

Advanced level

This assessment also involves criteria of content: the value and relevance of the information are questioned. It should also involve criteria related to the source: the author and his authority are questioned. The work of comparison between sources promotes the evaluation of information. It seems important also to observe existing practices of professeurs documentalistes, and to compare them with the research field and observations on students’ psychological and cognitive development. This reflective work on theory and practice allows us to identify on which level a discovery can be initiated or developed, or whatever specific notion, in relation to specific knowledge or skills in information and documentation. If we consider that the concepts of document and document structure can be developed very early, starting with teaching resources in educational situations of student activity, it is estimated that the concepts of classification and publication of the information economy can wait to be developed later on, as well as the concepts of catalogue, editorial content, and documentary instability. This reflection is accompanied by an interest in regarding the actual work of teacher librarians, especially when pedagogical sequences which explain different notions are published on the internet. Thus, for the concept of “evaluation of information”, we introduce a number of corresponding sequences from the sixth grade to the twelfth grade, while for some concepts it would only be from the fourth grade to the fifth grade, depending on the cognitive development of students and their ability to acquire a defined knowledge. Then, to improve the current situation and identify rich collaborations and complementarities, we rely on existing curriculum, from kindergarten to high school, with programmes that are about to be revised in the 2015 French context of a school reform. This examination of existing programmes consists of identifying the specific elements of information and documentation in these texts, and also in beginning to understand the integration of a specific instruction in a new global curriculum. From these elements, we should be able to provide a programme, from the basic concepts of information and documentation, in middle and high school, with considerations on organization and evaluation of the learning. The pro-

162 

 Florian Reynaud et al.

gramme is built around four fields. In each field, we do note the objectives set for the level, then the concepts developed, as part of a discovery, an initiation or thorough analysis: –– informational and digital environments; –– process of information and documentation; –– critical distance on the media, ICT and information; –– legal and ethical responsibility on the information. For each level, in each field, the question is to explain the objectives, as well as the concepts and the skills that are associated with these objectives, without forgetting comments suggested with the associated activities. For example, upon entry to the sixth grade, we get the proposition in Table 12.2 for student learning in the field of “informational and digital environments”. Table 12.2: Student learning in the field of informational and digital environments. Objectives Knowledge and skills relating to the process of information and documentation aims to: – allow students to know the ideas associated with information retrieval and document production, in order to master these activities; – promote progressive access to autonomy and critical judgment in school and extra-school activities Ideas or concepts 2.1. Indexing system Key word Index 2.2. Information search Search engine Request (On-line) Portal Browsing 2.3. Exploitation of the information Evaluation of information

Relevancy Production of a document

Skills To define the key words useful to an information retrieval. To know how to use the search tools (index and contents of a non fiction book, search bar of search engine) To distinguish between browser and search engine. To define a search engine and an on-line portal. To use the tree-structure and hypertextual browsing to search information. To choose between several documents (non fiction books/ reference books, periodicals, webpages) during a search for information, depending on: − their relevancy − their reliability − their validity To define simple criteria for information reliability. To carry out a production of a document (talk, report …) using elements found during an information search.



12 Developing a Curriculum in Information and Documentation 

 163

This work developed from a programmatic framework, identifying the progression of the curriculum in information-documentation, in secondary schools and high schools, including a number of competences to achieve, that are related to the essential ideas; this general knowledge is given through different pedagogical approaches.

Challenges An immediate challenge is related to the very nature of the school library or CDI in secondary schools in France. At present, the Ministry of Education in France is advocating the transitioning of the school library into a “learning centre”. The concept of the learning centre focuses on self-access to skills and knowledge and offers a large self-service cultural area which clearly leaves behind the role of the CDI as an instructional tool for planned and structured training sessions. The FADBEN fears that the CDI conceived as an instructional place is doomed to disappear if the university model of the learning centre is transposed to high schools. From the FADBEN’s perspective, the autonomy of students should be taken as an aim, not as a starting point. For each pupil, informal learning and educational support imply formal learning for efficiency. Self-access to skills and knowledge is an illusion: it is the opposite of a democratic and egalitarian education because it means that assistance would be offered only to individuals who come to the CDI or learning centre. Other longstanding challenges remain, related to: (1) insufficient staff in CDIs; (2) limited understanding within the educational system of the role of professeurs documentalistes; and (3) the lack of a curriculum in information and documentation. According to the IFLA School Library Guidelines Draft, “it is essential to have a well-trained and highly motivated staff, in sufficient numbers according to the size of the school and its unique needs” (2015, Section 3.1). In France, the number of professeurs documentalistes in each school does not vary according to the number of students and their special needs for library services. For example, most of the time there is only one professeur documentaliste in a middle school whether there are 250 or 800 students, with a library assistant in only one middle school out of five. This means that, in larger schools, the professeurs documentalistes do not have enough time allocated for teaching all students.

164 

 Florian Reynaud et al.

Second, generally administrators and other teachers in the school are not well-informed about the mission of the professeurs documentalistes and about the instructional resources of which the professeurs documentalistes are in charge. Third, strictly speaking the professeurs documentalistes do not have a curriculum or programme to help them in their teaching. Hence, the significance of the work committed by the FADBEN in order to define school knowledge in information and documentation involved in the formation of the public-spirited students, understanding what is at stake now and in the future. A recent survey of professeurs documentalistes (FADBEN 2013) reinforced this commitment, and shows that, despite the difficulties mentioned, a good number of professeurs documentalistes actually are engaged in the transmission of knowledge in information-documentation. Thanks to this investigation, we have evidence that professeurs documentalistes, in collaboration with other teachers, integrate lessons into existing teaching methods in order to develop students’ information and documentation skills. Similarly, the professeurs documentalistes have widely integrated digital services into their management and educational responsibilities. Unfortunately, these positive aspects are diminished by the focus on some grade-levels only (i.e., at secondary school entrance and high school entrance), along with the lack of a progressive instructional plan, mainly due to the lack of framing texts such as the curriculum. The implications of this survey are that “the creation of teaching modules would be a solution to strengthening the teaching skills of the professeur documentaliste. Moreover, it would add assurance to give the students every year, according to each grade-level, a number of sessions directed by the professeur documentaliste in collaboration or not with other colleagues”.

Conclusion The FADBEN aspires to the formalization of a curriculum in information and documentation in order to give to the professeurs documentalistes the capability of implementing their teaching and enabling students to acquire information, media and digital knowledge and skills. A first attempt to realize this work is in this publication, written in French, under the title “Vers un curriculum en information-documentation” and published at the end of 2014. The FADBEN wants to share its thoughts and works with national and international peers in order to make its project become a reality within an unlimited timetable. The FADBEN wants to carry on the work to which it has been committed since 2003. The FADBEN is dedicated to formalizing a new stage in the real-



12 Developing a Curriculum in Information and Documentation 

 165

ization of this kind of curriculum with tangible proposals stressing theoretical and instructional reflections, as well as evolving and experimental practice, in educational terms.

References FADBEN. 1997. Référentiel de compétences élèves [A reference table of information literacy skills]. http://www.fadben.asso.fr/UN-REFERENTIEL-DE-COMPETENCES.html. Accessed on 27 February 2015. FADBEN. 2007. “Les savoirs scolaires en information-documentation: 7 notions organisatrices.” Médiadoc, March. http://www.fadben.asso.fr/IMG/pdf/Mediadoc-Savoirs-scol_ Mars2007_Der.pdf. Accessed on 21 February 2015. FADBEN. 2009. “Espace d’information, espace de formation.”Mediadoc 3, October. http://www. fadben.asso.fr/Espace-d-information-espace-de.html ? Accessed on 21 February 2015. FADBEN. 2013. “Les professeurs documentalistes et les apprentissages info-documentaires. Résultats de l‘enquête réalisée par la Fadben en 2013.” http://www.fadben.asso.fr/ Les-professeurs-documentalistes-et.html. Accessed on 21 February 2015. FADBEN. 2014. “Vers un curriculum en information-documentation.” http://www.fadben.asso. fr/Vers-un-curriculum-en-information-346.html. Accessed on 21 February 2015. FADBEN. 2015. “Wikinotions Info-Doc.” http://fadben.asso.fr/wikinotions/. Accessed on 21 February 2015. Groupe de Recherche sur la Culture et la Didactique de l’Information (GRCDI). 2010. “Culture informationnelle et didactique de l’information. Synthèse des travaux du GRCDI, 2007–2010.” http://archivesic.ccsd.cnrs.fr/sic_00520098/fr/. Accessed on 21 February 2015. IFLA. 2015. IFLA School Library Guidelines Draft. [Draft dated 12 January 2015.] Ministère de l’Éducation nationale. 1986. “Circulaire n° 86–123 du 13 mars 1986. Missions des personnels exerçant dans les centres de documentation et d’information.” http:// circulaires.legifrance.gouv.fr/pdf/2009/04/cir_906.pdf. Accessed on 27 February 2015. Ministère de l’Education nationale. 1989. “Rapport annexé à la Loi n° 89–486, du 10 juillet 1989.” http://www.cndp.fr/savoirscdi/metier/le-professeur-documentalistetextes-reglementaires/acces-chronologique-aux-textes-reglementaires/1980-1989/ rapport-annexe-loi-n-89-486-du-10-juillet-1989.html. Accessed on 21 February 2015. Ministère de l’Education nationale. 2013. “Arrêté du 1er juillet 2013, publié au Journal Officiel du 18 juillet 2013.” http://www.education.gouv.fr/pid25535/bulletin_officiel.html?cid_ bo=73066. Accessed on 21 February 2015.

Alison Mackenzie and Marilyn Hand

13 Developing a K-6 Note Taking 13 Continuum in a School in Western 13 Australia 13 Developing a K-6 Note Taking Continuum in a School in Western Australia

Abstract: This chapter looks at the development and implementation of a wholeschool (K-6) note-taking continuum. The project began with the sharing of concerns from the authors regarding student difficulty in picking out important and relevant information for research and literacy tasks. A main focus of the project has been the consistency of language and structure as well as being developmentally appropriate and scaffolded across the whole school and guided by curriculum needs. The authors were able to develop a successful note-taking process to assist students in their learning and to incorporate the process into both the Perth College English Scope and Sequence and the Perth College Information Literacy Scope and Sequence. Their work is consistent with the research of Robert Marzano and his work on High Yield Strategies, with the Inquiry Model developed in Alberta, Canada, and with the guidelines and indicators included in Australia’s Learning for the Future: Developing Information Services in School. Keywords: Australia; Western Australia; Information literacy; Collaboration; Curriculum development; Note taking; Summarizing; Inquiry; Student assessment; Teaching role of school librarians.

Background Perth College Anglican School for Girls is an independent day and boarding school for girls in Perth, Western Australia. Perth, the capital of Western Australia, has a population of approximately two million people. Perth College is a non-selective fee-paying school close to the heart of Perth city centre. The Junior School includes kindergarten to year 6 students, and the Senior School includes year 7 to year 12, totalling approximately 1,000 students. The teacher librarian works across the Junior School and the Senior School to ensure continuity of information literacy skills and services and works collaboratively with classroom teachers to ensure their own information needs and the needs of their students are met. The model of information literacy used at the school was developed by the teacher librarian based on a number of different models from around the world



13 Developing a K-6 Note Taking Continuum in a School in Western Australia 

 167

and encompasses best practice in current information literacy theory. The kindergarten to year 12 information literacy model (“Scope and Sequence”) was developed collaboratively with classroom teachers at each level in the Junior School and subject teachers in the Senior School. It is specific to the school setting and linked to the available resources.

Introduction The note-taking project was undertaken and linked to the 2010 Australian Curriculum, which is being implemented in stages across all Australian schools. A key dimension of the Australian Curriculum is the general capabilities: “they encompass knowledge, skills, behaviours and dispositions that together with curriculum content in each learning area and the cross-curriculum priorities, will assist students to live and work successfully in the twenty-first century” (ACARA 2013). The Australian Curriculum includes seven general capabilities: literacy; numeracy; information and communication technology capability; critical and creative thinking; personal and social capability; ethical understanding; and intercultural understanding. The note-taking project incorporates three of these capabilities: literacy, information and communication technology capability, and critical and creative thinking. The general capabilities are addressed through all of the learning areas, and this is where the note-taking project demonstrates its flexibility in the development of transferable skills across the curriculum areas. Using Learning for the Future: Developing Information Services in School (ALIA/ASLA 2001) as the basis for developing the note-taking project, we decided to follow a number of the guidelines and indicators given in the “Learners and Learning” section. These included : –– “A continuum of information and ICT literacy developed on an agreed information process framework is used as a basis for planning classroom programs across all curriculum areas, in order to develop the skills incrementally in the context of students’ learning needs.” (12) – The note-taking project was seamlessly integrated into and based on the existing Perth College Information Literacy Scope and Sequence. –– “Students experience learning programs that integrate the acquisition of knowledge, understandings and information and ICT literacy and that are developed collaboratively by members of the teaching team.” (13) – An important element of the success of the note-taking project was the inclusion of staff in the development and refining of resources and processes.

168 

 Alison Mackenzie and Marilyn Hand

–– “Learners have regular and systematic exposure to resource-based inquiry learning, process learning and problem solving.” (13) – This occurs due to the fact that note taking is being used across a number of curriculum areas. The stimulus for this project came from the realization that our students were struggling to make sense of the information they were reading, be it from non-fiction texts, fiction texts or internet sites. In order for them to gain understanding and meaning from the information and not suffer from a feeling of being overwhelmed, we looked at devising a framework that would support and scaffold them from the early years. We both recognized the difficulty that primary students have, firstly in taking and secondly in using high quality, meaningful notes to complete research, inquiry and literacy tasks. We also realized the need to develop and share a developmental continuum of note-taking skills and the explicit teaching of these skills. This would also include a consistent language and structure for note taking, summarizing and writing across the school. Vital in the process was the requirement for evidence-based research, collaborative work with staff and promotion and implementation across the whole school. A systematic approach to the development of inquiry skills is essential to prepare students for problem solving and lifelong learning and as such using an inquiry model helps students to internalize a process for inquiry that is transferable to everyday life situations (Alberta Learning 2004). The Alberta model for inquiry, called “Focus on Inquiry”, incorporates a number of elements which we utilized in the note-taking project including: –– a scaffold for instruction – outlining the skills and strategies that need to be taught explicitly in each phase of the process (the use of scaffolding sheets); –– a common language for teachers and students – helping students to internalize the model and to talk about the learning processes involved (the use of common language across year levels); –– a guide for students – without learning an inquiry process, students often develop a very limited and narrow view of inquiry (the note-taking process is structured in clear stages to maintain student focus on relevancy). The outcome we hoped for the students would be a common strategy, which would be developed and extended over the primary years, improving their note taking, summarizing and inquiry skills. This strategy would be reinforced with similarly formated scaffolding sheets, which progress by year level as the students’ needs become more complex. This set of skills would set the students in good stead for literacy tasks in English and for research tasks in the library and classroom projects.



13 Developing a K-6 Note Taking Continuum in a School in Western Australia 

 169

Engaging Staff in the Process The very first step in the whole process was to engage the staff and secure their support in the development and implementation of the note-taking project. We were able to back up our claims by sharing the research findings of Dr Robert Marzano and his work on note taking and summarizing as part of the “Nine Instructional Strategies for Effective Teaching and Learning” (Marzano and Pickering 2001). Research indicates an effect size of 0.90 for note taking and that “students who employ summarising and note taking strategies consistently perform better on academic assessments than do students [in control groups] who do not use these techniques” (Marzano and Pickering 2001, 79). Use of this strategy can result in a 34% gain in student achievement, which highlights the importance of students’ learning how to summarize findings. The decision was made to adopt Marzano’s strategy of keep, substitute, delete. This strategy and these words became our mantra, the common language used across the school. This strategy requires students to identify the essential information (the keywords and phrases that they need to keep), the words or phrases they can substitute into words or phrases that are easier to understand or more interesting (i.e., their own words), and finally the information they can delete (information that is irrelevant to the topic they are researching or small words that are not necessary for notes). We also showed the staff a video clip, which is available online, called “Fact Fragment Frenzy” (ReadWriteThink 2013). This interactive tool models finding facts in a non-fiction text. This gave staff a starting point for the explicit teaching of the strategy. We were able to substantiate the concepts from this video clip with a number of recent work samples from students where it was clear that the use of the strategy would have assisted the students in collecting relevant, meaningful and useful notes for report writing.

Whole School Continuum Once we had gained support from our colleagues, the next step was to collate existing scaffold sheets from classroom teachers, in order to gauge what methods were currently employed as well as the language that was being used. We then considered how we could use this information to produce a sample set of note taking scaffolding sheets from year 1 to year 6, incorporating elements relevant to each level.

170 

 Alison Mackenzie and Marilyn Hand

We then developed a scaffold sheet for each year level. These were presented to the staff in draft format, and staff members were given the opportunity to make suggestions or changes. This was a crucial step as we wanted to make them both useful and usable for staff and students as well as meeting the developmental needs of each year level and curriculum needs. It was decided to introduce the vocabulary of keep and delete in Kindergarten and consolidate this in Preparatory. The teachers of these year groups would use this during oral-language sessions and the Preparatory teacher would model the concepts in class and in group reading and writing activities. The concepts of keep and delete were deeply embedded in years 1 and 2 with the start of written examples by the students. These concepts are reinforced in year 3, and it is at this point that we introduce the idea of substitute. Years 4 and 5 consolidate these three concepts. By year 6 all three concepts are deeply embedded across the curriculum areas, and students are able to utilize an electronic version of the scaffold to extract key information from multiple sources at one time. We proposed that the keep, substitute, delete strategy would work as follows: 1. Students were either given or found their own informational text. This could be photocopied from a book or printed from the internet. 2. Students then read through the text highlighting (in one colour) or circling words and phrases they wanted to keep; highlighting (in a second colour) or scoring out words and phrases they wanted to delete; and finally for the year 3 and upwards highlighting (in a third colour) words and phrases they wanted to substitute. The students documented their colour choices in a key. 3. The keep words and phrases along with the substituted words were then transferred in dot-point form onto the keyword section of the scaffolding sheet. 4. The final step was then using these dot points to re-write the information in their own words – a first draft. Ultimately, by year 5 and 6 we would look towards the students changing the order of the text and introducing their own adverbs and expressions to the first draft. This demonstrates a real understanding of the text they have read, and the higher-order skill of rearranging it to read differently. At this point in the project, we were aware of the difficulties students face in the retrieval of relevant data. In the Retrieval Phase of the Focus on Inquiry model, it is recognized that it is important to teach students “the skills and strategies for selecting relevant information and for adjusting and modifying inquiries” (Alberta Learning 2004, 12). Therefore, we stressed the need for and importance of explicit teaching of skills and language. Also, in the Processing Phase of Focus on Inquiry, it is recognized that the students may feel overwhelmed with confus-



13 Developing a K-6 Note Taking Continuum in a School in Western Australia 

 171

ing and contradictory information. Therefore, it is important to teach students how to compare, contrast and synthesize data as well as knowing when to actually give the students the information they need. A final critical element of the Focus on Inquiry model that we incorporated into the note-taking project was the Creating Phase, where the information is organized, put into one’s own words, and a presentation format is created. The ability of the students to put things into their own words was the goal for all involved. After a number of trials with this method, we discovered that at the substitute stage, it was easier for both student’s writing and teacher’s assessment if the students wrote the substitution word above the “old” word in the original text. This made it easier for students to transfer the new words into dot points and ultimately into the draft. The Year 6 students can collate information from three different online sources (with referencing details) in one place, work through the stages of keep, substitute, delete for each source, and then pull out the key words and phrases from each source to synthesise information. In this way the students are able to see the key information from each source together and then use these key word notes to rewrite the information in their own words. This strategy appears to resemble the “easy” option of “copy and pasting” information from the internet; however, the structure of the scaffolding sheets guides and supports the students in following the process through to presenting the information in their own words.

Referencing As part of the development of the note-taking continuum, we took the opportunity to incorporate a referencing continuum as well into the Perth College Information Literacy Scope and Sequence. Having witnessed students copying information straight from the source, we knew that we needed to introduce the idea of referencing in the early years so that it became a habit to reference sources used. To facilitate this, we included a referencing section on the scaffolding sheet. The Year 1 and 2 scaffold sheet requires the students to indicate whether they found the information in a book or from a website. In Year 3 we expect the students to indicate whether the information is from a book or a website and then write the title of the book or the address of the website. In Year 4 we require the students to include the author and title of the book or the author and web address. In Year 5 the students are required to attempt full APA-style referencing and the Year 6 students are expected to reference fully in APA style.

172 

 Alison Mackenzie and Marilyn Hand

After being shown all of the elements of referencing and where to find these details in information sources, we demonstrate a number of reputable electronic reference generators to assist students with this part of research. The Year 6 electronic scaffold sheet includes a section for the students to find and include all of the referencing information in table format. They are then able to use this information to construct a bibliography of all of the sources used. This is particularly helpful for students because they are able to find all of the referencing information and record it in one place, and the information is then easily transferred to a bibliography.

Support for Implementation In order to guarantee that these strategies were adopted throughout the school on an ongoing basis, the note-taking and referencing continuum has been integrated into both the Perth College English Scope and Sequence and the Perth College Information Literacy Scope and Sequence. As part of the process of developing the implementation of this continuum, we commissioned an in-house DVD to be made. The intention behind this was to record the process throughout the whole school and across the year levels. It also gave staff involved the chance to reflect about their experiences and to demonstrate to each other how they used the strategies and concepts within their classrooms and the library. The benefits of this included teachers being able to see what was happening in the year levels above and below them and also teachers being able to see the advantages of using a whole-school approach to strategies, concepts and vocabulary. The DVD has since been used as a professional development tool for other interested teachers around Australia.

Classroom Examples Year 1 Note Taking in Science Year 1 Teacher Kristine Sanders reported: We have used the new Note Taking strategy in Science this term, learning about ‘Living Things’ and researching butterflies in order to write a report. The students developed their own inquiry questions on ‘The Life Cycle of a Butterfly.’ Questions such as ‘What happens when a butterfly lays eggs?’ were devised by the students, and the process of moving from



13 Developing a K-6 Note Taking Continuum in a School in Western Australia 

 173

the initial question, finding answers, and presenting findings in a written report was discussed with them. To add importance to the process, the whole exercise was included in a dramatic performance at a school assembly. Year 1 students are taught the strategies of ‘keep’ and ‘delete’ in order to pick out relevant information and key facts. After a note taking lesson, one student commented, “In my head, I think about which words are keywords and which are detail.” Another student said, “I think about which words are fact words and which are sentence words.” This highlights the students’ understanding of the concept and what they actually need to do. I have been surprised at what the girls can do, the way they have made the correct decisions about what to keep and what to delete. I have also been impressed with the level of debate amongst the students. One example of this was when the phrase ‘Almost all’ appeared in the information text – the students were deciding whether to keep or delete ‘almost’ or ‘all’ or ‘both,’ when one student remarked that deleting ‘almost’ would change the meaning of the sentence. Another student asked, “Can we use another word?” This demonstrated the students’ natural progression to the incorporation of the next stage of the Note Taking Strategy, ‘substitute’, and as well the use of higher order thinking skills. The students have also been made aware of the term plagiarism and why they need to use their own words – the crux of the whole school note taking project.

Year 5 Note Taking in History Year 5 Teacher Jesse Ussi commented: A large part of the Year 5 History syllabus is inquiry based. The research component can be quite challenging for the Year 5 students as there are many concepts which are either new or need reinforcing. Each year, the process is refined and tailored to meet the needs of the class. This year, the note taking strategies that Alison and Marilyn have undertaken has provided the tools, support and expertise to further improve the process with excellent results. Students have been provided with graphic organisers as tools – these help clarify inquiry questions, breaking them down into manageable chunks, and support students in organising their information. The note taking sheets have also been designed to include ‘keep, substitute, delete’ reminders and are structured to enable students to process information from the original source to keywords and phrases to first draft paragraphs in their own words. As the Teacher Librarian, Alison works closely with the Year Five teachers to help guide students through the research process so they better understand which information to keep, substitute or delete. Both of these staff [Alison and Marilyn] have brought a wealth of expertise on information gathering which has developed and improved the research processes, guiding students to better outcomes.

174 

 Alison Mackenzie and Marilyn Hand

Student Assessment The process of implementing the new note-taking continuum presented us as a school staff with the opportunity to look at note taking as an assessment area across the years. As a staff, we began working to devise a consistent set of year-level-appropriate assessment criteria related to note taking which have been developed into year-level, subject-generic standardized assessment rubrics. This emphasis on assessment also added legitimacy to the project and gave us, as staff, indicators on which to focus in the short term and goals to achieve in the long term. We have also introduced a number of year-level assessments to compare achievement standards and to provide feedback for students and parents as well as to inform our practice. As the note taking is used across the school in a number of curriculum areas, it is constantly being monitored and evaluated. Assessment takes place both in the work produced (the end result) and also in the students’ ability to take notes and summarize in their own words (the process).

Long-term Outcomes of the Project The long term goal of the note-taking project was to provide all of the students in the Year 1 to Year 6 Junior School with a clear, simple strategy for note taking to improve research, inquiry and comprehension of information. The aim was to embed these strategies and skills across the curriculum and to provide our students with skills for life-long learning. All of the staff at Perth College Junior School – classroom teachers and administration – have embraced the project, because they are fully aware of the importance of these skills and the impact that these skills will have on our students’ learning as they journey through to their senior years of education and to the world beyond the classroom. The outcomes of this project have been phenomenal. It has been warmly and enthusiastically welcomed by our staff who saw the need for a cohesive approach in such a difficult area of student learning. More importantly, we have evidence of students taking these skills outside of school and using them at home. The outcomes of this project have been shared in-school and also at state and national conferences in Australia. An additional bonus of the project was the introduction of the keep, substitute, delete strategy into the Senior School in partnership with the Humanities and Social Science department. As we have an intake year in Year 7, it was important that the new students to the school be introduced to the same note-taking



13 Developing a K-6 Note Taking Continuum in a School in Western Australia 

 175

strategy as students coming up into the Senior School from the Junior School. We were able to teach and reinforce with the whole cohort the strategy of keep, substitute, delete which then was reinforced with them by the Humanities and Social Science teachers. Assignments were re-designed to incorporate the strategy and to make it a valid technique for the older students. A number of small group workshops have been offered for the older students as well who feel that a simple note-taking strategy would help them in preparing for examinations as well as in completing research projects.

Lessons learned The most important features of this action research project have been: the development of evidence-based practice; the consistency in use of language and structure; the use of an inquiry model; and the use of developmentally appropriate strategies. Using a whole-school approach has enabled the concepts to be reinforced and developed with increasing complexity to meet student, teacher and curriculum needs. The note-taking strategy is applicable across the curriculum learning areas, and it is being used for history, geography, science and literacy, in keeping with the Australian Curriculum approach of developing general capabilities. Other lessons learned include the importance and significance of a wholeschool approach, especially because note taking and summarizing are really difficult concepts for students to master. The skills that students are learning through the note taking project are not only transferable, but also “life-long”. “Whether the inquirer is a six year old, a senior high school student, an undergraduate student at university, a lawyer, a teacher or a researcher” (Alberta Learning 2004, 9), the skills of note taking are essential. All teachers are involved in teaching these essential skills and see the benefits of working together on this. “Guidelines assist planning at the school level by providing a specific frame of reference for school communities to explore their local school needs and resource requirements” (ALIA/ASLA 2001, 76). We have been reminded how important it is to have access to good quality, authoritative resources – the raison d’être for a high-quality school library with qualified staff. The note-taking project considered the local needs of Perth College students, provided resources to meet these needs, and implemented guidelines for each year level to ensure this was carried out in a consistent and workable way.

176 

 Alison Mackenzie and Marilyn Hand

References Alberta Learning. 2004. Focus on Inquiry: A Teacher’s Guide to Implementing Inquiry-based Learning. Edmonton, Canada: Alberta Learning. Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority (ACARA). 2013. “General Capabilities.” The Australian Curriculum V7.2 (January 1). http://www.australiancurriculum. edu.au/generalcapabilities/overview/general-capabilities-in-the-australian-curriculum. Accessed on 11 December 2014. Australian Library and Information Association and Australian School Library Association (ALIA/ ASLA). 2001. Learning for the Future: Developing Information Services in Schools. 2nd ed. Carlton South, Victoria, Australia: Curriculum Corporation. Marzano, Robert J., Debra Pickering and Jane E. Pollock. 2001. Classroom Instruction That Works: Research-based Strategies for Increasing Student Achievement. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. ReadWriteThink. 2013. Student Materials: “Fact Fragment Frenzy.” http://www.readwritethink. org/classroom-resources/student-interactives/fact-fragment-frenzy-30013.html. Accessed on 22 February 2015.

Part 6 Guidelines for the Initial Preparation Part 6 of School Librarians

Gail K. Dickinson and Audrey P. Church

14 Guiding the Preparation of School 14 Librarians in the United States, 14 1984–2014 14 Guiding the Preparation of School Librarians in the United States, 1984–2014

Abstract: The purpose of this chapter is to examine the impact of standards for the initial preparation of school librarians created by the partnership of the American Library Association/American Association of School Librarians (ALA/AASL) and the National Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE), now the Council for the Accreditation of Educator Preparation (CAEP). These standards provide the context for programme review and national recognition of graduate programmes that prepare PreK-12 school librarians in the United States. Fuelled by national programme standards for building-level school librarians and learning standards for PreK-12 students, these standards pave the way for standards-based preparation programmes. Keywords: United States of America; School library education; Accreditation; Library education programme assessment; Library education programme standards; Professional standards for school librarians.

Background The American Library Association is the issuing agency responsible for standards concerning the preparation of librarians. ALA’s Office for Accreditation (ALA-OA) has developed standards and a complex process including external review panels for the accreditation of university-based programmes educating librarians for all types of libraries. School librarians are among those high-quality candidates educated in ALA-accredited programmes, but not all school librarians are trained in ALA-accredited programmes. Unlike librarians in other types of libraries, school librarians in the United States may also focus on their educational roots by seeking their professional licence in teacher-training programmes. The requirements for licensure as a school librarian vary according to state requirements. This dichotomy of dual professional allegiance is unique to the school library field. In other types of specialized library service, there is a clear definition of the content of the practice versus the skills and training of librarianship. For law librarians, for instance, some may have legal training and in fact be full-fledged lawyers, but the library-science profession is considered their focus of work, and

180 

 Gail K. Dickinson and Audrey P. Church

their profession. For school librarians, though, the teaching expertise, curriculum knowledge, and assessment mastery require an active education presence. School librarians are not education librarians as may be found in academic settings. School librarians in the United States are considered teachers with all of the rights, duties, and professional responsibilities of that profession. They are also librarians with all of the rights, duties, and responsibilities of that profession as well. These dual foci can at times conflict. Also in conflict is whether the preparation for school librarians is best seated in library science or in education programmes of study. In the seminal work Libraries and the Learning Society (United States Commission on Excellence in Education 1984), Jane Hannigan and Peggy Sullivan addressed each side of the issue. Hannigan (1984) presented the argument that library schools were unprepared to train teachers and that building the capacity to fully train school librarians as the teachers they needed to be would detract from the ability to educate librarians for the general library profession. Peggy Sullivan, rebutting that argument (1984), noted that, although school librarians were teachers, they were also librarians, and removing them from their library science home was not in the best interests of librarianship. To some extent, the debate continues today. In the United States, preparation for school librarianship occurs in four different scenarios. Most traditional is the preparation based in an ALA-accredited library school. In this scenario, school librarianship is considered a plan of study with usually one or two faculty engaged in advising and mentoring students focused on school libraries as a career choice. There is usually a core of general library-science foundational courses that all students take, with additional required courses targeted to school library issues for the school library students. Electives are rare, due to the difficulties of meeting the demands of standards from both ALA accreditation and state teacher licensure offices. The next scenario is the programme situated in a teacher-training department in a college of education. Although not ALA-accredited, these programmes have completed a rigorous self-evaluation and external programme review to be Nationally Recognized through the ALA/AASL process. Third, programmes located in CAEPaccredited colleges of education, depending on state requirements, may elect not to complete the national recognition process, but are considered approved by CAEP. And, finally, since CAEP accreditation is a voluntary process, there are school librarian preparation programmes approved by the state review process that are not nationally accredited. What all of these programmes share, though, is the preparation based on national standards. From the inception of the very first programme preparation standards, whether or not a programme is accredited, recognized, or simply state-approved, it is the standards from AASL that are at the basis of the process.

 14 Guiding the Preparation of School Librarians in the United States, 1984–2014 

 181

When new standards for building-level school library programmes are released, be it Information Power (1988, 1998) or Empowering Learners (2009), the way that school librarians are prepared and the way that they are evaluated on the job changes dramatically. The AASL/NCATE standards, now CAEP, are systematically developed, published, and disseminated widely to be used as the basis for that preparation (ALA/AASL 2010). The history of ALA’s involvement in the accreditation of teacher education for school librarians started in the latter part of the last century. In the late 1980s, Marilyn Miller, 1986–1987 AASL President, called for ALA to join NCATE, the National Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education (Miller 1989). The resolution was passed in ALA council at the 1987 Midwinter Meeting (Miller 1989), and ALA became a member of NCATE. The first standards for the preparation of school librarians were passed by NCATE’s Specialty Area Studies Board in 1988. Since then, three revisions of those standards have been approved, with the latest set in 2010. There is considerable alignment between these ALA/AASL Standards for the Initial Preparation of School Librarians (2010) and the 2015 IFLA School Library Guidelines, as evidenced in Table 14.1. Table 14.1: Comparison of IFLA School Library Guidelines and ALA/AASL Standards for the Initial Preparation of School Librarians IFLA School Library Guidelines

ALA/AASL Standards for the Initial Preparation of School Librarians

Chapter 2. Legal and Financial Framework for the School Library 2.3 Ethical bases and issues 2.6 Planning 2.7 Funding

5.2 Professional ethics 5.4 Strategic planning and assessment 5.3 Personnel, funding, and facilities

Chapter 3. Human Resources for the School Library 3.5.1 Instruction 3.5.2 Management 3.5.3 Leadership and collaboration 3.5.4 Community engagement 3.5.5 Promoting library services 3.7 Ethical standards

1.2 Effective and knowledgeable teacher 5.3 Personnel, funding, and facilities 1.3 Instructional partner 4.1 Networking with the library community 4.4 Advocacy 3.2 Access to information

Chapter 4. Physical and Virtual Resources of the School Library 4.2 Facilities 4.3 Collection development and management

5.3 Personnel, funding, and facilities 5.1 Collections

182 

 Gail K. Dickinson and Audrey P. Church

IFLA School Library Guidelines Chapter 5. Program and Activities of the School Library 5.3 Literacy and reading promotion 5.4 Media and information literacy instruction 5.6 Technology integration 5.7 5.8

Professional development for teachers Instruction role of a school librarian

Chapter 6. School Library Evaluation and Public Relations 6.2 School library evaluation and evidencebased practice 6.3 Approaches to school library evaluation 6.5.1 Promotion and marketing 6.5.2 Advocacy

ALA/AASL Standards for the Initial Preparation of School Librarians

2.1 Literature; 2.2 Reading promotion 3.1 Efficient and ethical information-seeking behavior 1.4 Integration of twenty-first skills and learning standards 1.3 Instructional partner 1.2 Effective and knowledgeable teacher

3.4 Research and knowledge creation 5.4 Strategic planning and assessment 4.3 Leadership 4.4 Advocacy

Location and Demographics Although CAEP is based in the United States, both universities and country-wide education ministries in various countries across the globe improve education through the accreditation process or participate in the CAEP accreditation process. There are over 700 universities in the United States currently accredited by CAEP or NCATE. Housed within these universities are approximately 40 currently nationally recognized school librarianship education programmes (CAEP/AASL 2014). Partnership agreements negotiated between CAEP and state boards of education govern the degree to which national recognition through CAEP is required or voluntary, the approval of state standards for licensure, and the process (state or national) by which preparation programmes are approved (CAEP 2015). It should be noted as well that the ALA and CAEP are members of the Council for Higher Education Accreditation (CHEA). Because CHEA members agree to accept accreditations of other member associations, ALA-accredited institutions are approved by CAEP and do not have to submit additional information to CAEP. School librarian preparation programmes housed within ALAaccredited programmes, although they are approved, are not considered nationally recognized, unless they have prepared a programme report with key assessments for the national recognition process.

 14 Guiding the Preparation of School Librarians in the United States, 1984–2014 

 183

All of this, though, is not to say that nationally recognized programmes are inherently better than non-recognized programmes, and no research exists on which to base an informed opinion. What it does mean is nationally recognized programmes have gone through a voluntary process by which they have submitted key assessment data aligned with national standards for a rigorous external review.

Resources Utilized ALA’s Office for Accreditation provides the central coordination for the AASL/ CAEP programme review process and the ALA national accreditation process. Responsibility for the CAEP process is shared by AASL. AASL’s CAEP Coordinating Committee works directly with the ALA-OA to provide training for programme reviewers, coordination for review and audit teams, and evaluative feedback on the national recognition process. The process also depends on extensive time and training at the programme level. Faculty coordinators develop six to eight key assessments that will demonstrate prospective school librarians have mastered each of the standards (see Tables 14.2 and 14.3). They then prepare a submission with the overview of the programme, a documented alignment of the key assessments with the standards, and, for each assessment, a narrative description, scoring sheet or rubric, and a data chart that demonstrates the degree to which each candidate has mastered each standard. Table 14.2: Required Key Assessments (NCATE 2012) Level

Assessment

Assessment #1 Assessment #2 Assessment #3 Assessment #4 Assessment #5 Assessment #6

Licensure assessment, or other content-based assessment Assessment of content knowledge in the field of school librarianship Assessment of candidate ability to plan to meet program needs Assessment of practicum or internship Candidate effect on student learning Additional assessment that addresses ALA/AASL standards (required) Additional assessment that addresses ALA/AASL standards (optional) Additional assessment that addresses ALA/AASL standards (optional)

Assessment #7 Assessment #8

184 

 Gail K. Dickinson and Audrey P. Church

Table 14.3: ALA/AASL Standards for the Initial Preparation of School Librarians (2010) Standard

Description

Standard 1 Standard 2 Standard 3 Standard 4 Standard 5

Teaching for Learning Literacy and Reading Information and Knowledge Advocacy and Leadership Program Management and Administration

This documentation is submitted through CAEP to a panel of trained reviewers who analyse the documentation to ensure that the key assessments are aligned with the standards, that the data indicate mastery of the standards for each candidate, and that the programme has used the data to improve the programme. The judgement of the reviewers is “Further Development Required” for an emerging programme or either “Conditional” or “Nationally Recognized” for an established programme. The programme has the opportunity to respond twice with a “Response to Conditions” report before a final review indicates if they are Nationally Recognized. The review at each stage is also validated by experienced reviewers who serve as auditors of the review documentation and process.

Duration of the Action The first set of standards for school librarian preparation programmes, approved by the NCATE Specialty Areas Studies Board (SASB) in September 1988, was “compiled by an ALA/NCATE Guidelines Task Force for use by faculties in library media education, … [and] include[d] 64 competencies that should be demonstrated by entry-level/building-level school library media specialists” (NCATE Approves 1988, 17). Full guidance to programs seeking national recognition was outlined in the 1989 Curriculum Folio Guidelines for the NCATE Review Process School Library Media Specialist Basic Preparation (AASL/ALA 1989). A revised version of these standards was approved in October 1993, and Guidance for College/University Faculty Preparing a Curriculum Folio in the Area of School Library Media Education as Part of the Precondition Process for NCATE Accreditation was published in 1994 (ALA/AASL 1994). In looking ahead to 2000, NCATE in the late 1990s moved away from an evaluative process based on syllabi review and checklists of tasks to one built on an evidence-based practice focus of student learning outcomes (NCATE 2014.). This process was evident in the ALA/AASL Standards for Initial Programs for School

 14 Guiding the Preparation of School Librarians in the United States, 1984–2014 

 185

Library Media Specialist Preparation approved by NCATE in March 2003 (ALA/ AASL 2003). While the previous 1993 standards were checklists of competencies, the 2003 edition had just four standards with 13 elements, with mastery indicated by candidate outcomes on key assessments. In October 2010 the NCATE SASB approved the 2010 ALA/AASL Standards for the Initial Preparation of School Librarians which include five standards with 20 elements (again, with mastery indicated by candidate outcomes on key assessments) (ALA/AASL 2010).

Features A seven-year review and revision cycle is required by CAEP, and standards are updated on an ongoing basis to reflect best practice and current research. Each standard is required to have a detailed supporting explanation based in current research, as well as a rubric articulating Target, Acceptable, and Unacceptable performance on each of the standards. Previous assessment models allowed programmes to submit any documentation presumed to be of value, so that reviewers sometimes had to sift through multiple binders of documentation. A major shift with the NCATE 2000 (NCATE 2014) model was a mandate to limit the number of standards and to limit the documentation provided by the programme to six to eight key assessments. No syllabi review was permitted, and no student work or other supporting documentation was allowed. In the newly published CAEP standards (CAEP 2014), the focus is turning to fewer required standards and elements, a more holistic evaluative review based on the preponderance of evidence, and a focus on partnerships and collaboration.

Monitoring, Evaluation and Assessment One of the major differences between the ALA accreditation process and CAEP accreditation is that the CAEP focus is not on the specific college or school of education, but rather the teacher-education unit, which is described as the total teacher-preparation effort in the university. In almost all cases, the teacher-education unit stretches far beyond the education department, college, or school. For instance, in the training of science teachers, the focus will, of course, be on the courses of how to teach science, which may be housed in the education school, but it will also include advanced science courses, which are most likely based in the college of science. For other school personnel such as librarians, physical-

186 

 Gail K. Dickinson and Audrey P. Church

education teachers, or guidance counsellors, the review is based wherever those professionals are prepared. For that reason, many ALA-accredited programmes find that they are required to produce key assessment data for the teachereducation unit report, regardless of whether or not they choose to seek national recognition. This can be a cause of concern for programmes, and many find that the data they need to provide for the CAEP review is only slightly less than if they had decided to attempt national recognition.

Outcomes of the Action The goal of the CAEP national recognition process is programme improvement. Most programmes that have attempted national recognition readily indicate that they learned more about their programmes than they knew before. The primary outcome is quality control for school librarian preparation programmes. Programmes that move through the review process and earn national recognition demonstrate that each candidate has mastered these national standards. The programme must use the data from key assessments covering content knowledge, pedagogical content knowledge, field experience, and impact on PreK-12 student learning.

Challenges Encountered This process is not without challenges. Membership in CAEP, although voluntary, requires a financial investment from the institution. Depending on the partnership agreement between CAEP and the state in which the institution is housed, a preparation programme may or may not be required to undergo the programme review process. In some states, only nationally recognized programs have the authority to license teachers, while in other cases, national recognition or even CAEP accreditation is voluntary. In some cases, there is a lack of alignment between state programme standards and the AASL standards. The release of new programme guidelines from AASL such as Information Power (AASL/AECT 1998), the AASL Standards for the 21st Century Learner (2007), and Empowering Learners (2009) creates a ripple of change throughout the school library world. State school library programme guidelines are changed, and the school library curriculum is updated and re-aligned to ensure that the school library is creating independent information users. In many states, school librarian preparation standards are updated as well, but not in all.

 14 Guiding the Preparation of School Librarians in the United States, 1984–2014 

 187

The cycle of review for CAEP standards is seven years, and traditionally new standards and guidelines have been published by AASL every 10 to 12 years. The cycle of review for state teacher preparation standards, however, may be 25 or more years. Therefore, it is possible that state requirements for school librarian preparation are several sets of standards old and specify that outdated concepts must be taught. State licensure tests may as well require test-takers to have knowledge of outdated resources and library procedures. Although school librarian preparation programmes may want to be cutting edge, state requirements must still be met for the programme to produce state-licensed school librarians. Additionally, library science programmes housed within library/information schools may work to achieve ALA accreditation, and national recognition by AASL/CAEP may be seen as duplicative or dichotomous. Core courses, taken by all students, may not have the specificity required for CAEP standards. Key assessments, developed to meet the CAEP programme standards, may be resisted by some non-school library students in core classes, rendering the difficult issue of having a different set of assessments for some students in the course.

Lessons Learned and Further Research The process of programme review by peers based on standards that reflect best practice is a powerful one. Programmatic self-study leading to external review is a standard practice with the perceived goal of programme improvement. In the United States, the controversies and tension on how to best prepare school librarians have been somewhat resolved by a stream of nationally accepted preparation standards from NCATE/CAEP. The pressure and in some cases uneasiness of school librarian preparation programmes deciding on whether or not to try for national recognition stems from the ever-increasing rigour of the standards balanced with the ever-shrinking resources from the state. There is almost no research comparing the outcomes of the four scenarios of school librarian preparation. We do not know that programs integrating the standards and key assessments produce stronger school librarians than programmes that do not. More research on how best to prepare librarians of all types is needed in order to test how preparation is translated into practice for all librarians. Complicating the scenario, of course, is the complex nature of state licensure. Although there is some similarity, there is also substantial variation in terms of required education level, content coursework, or in some cases, even teacher classification.

188 

 Gail K. Dickinson and Audrey P. Church

It is important to note that ALA and AASL’s role in the development and implementation of standards is not competitive, but rather collaborative. Their shared role in the continuous review of high quality preparation programmes and the monitoring of the programme review process is designed to ensure that school library candidates are both skilled librarians and effective teachers.

References American Association of School Librarians (AASL). 2007. Standards for the 21st Century Learner. Chicago: American Library Association. http://www.ala.org/ala/mgrps/divs/ aasl/guidelinesandstandards/learningstandards/AASL_Learning_Standards_2007.pdf. Accessed on 15 November 2014. American Association of School Librarians (AASL). 2009. Empowering Learners: Guidelines for School Library Programs. Chicago: AASL. American Association of School Librarians/Association for Educational Communications and Technology (AASL/AECT). 1998. Information Power: Building Partnerships for Learning. Chicago, IL: American Library Association. American Association of School Librarians/American Library Association (AASL/ALA). 1989. Curriculum Folio Guidelines for the NCATE Review Process: School Library Media Specialist Basic Preparation. Chicago: ALA. American Library Association/American Association of School Librarians (ALA/AASL). 1994. Guidance for College/University Faculty Preparing a Curriculum Folio in the Area of School Library Media Education as Part of the Precondition Process for NCATE Accreditation. Chicago: ALA. American Library Association/American Association of School Librarians (ALA/AASL). 2003. “ALA/AASL Standards for Initial Programs for School Library Media Specialist Preparation.” http://www.ala.org/aasl/sites/ala.org.aasl/files/content/aasleducation/schoollibrary/ ala-aasl_slms2003.pdf . Accessed on 9 September 2014. American Library Association/American Association of School Librarians (ALA/AASL). 2010. “ALA/AASL Standards for the Initial Preparation of School Librarians.” http://www.ala.org/ aasl/sites/ala.org.aasl/files/content/aasleducation/schoollibrary/2010_standards_and_ items_with_statements_of_scope.pdf . Accessed on 9 September 2014. Council for the Accreditation of Educator Preparation (CAEP). 2014. “CAEP Standards.” http:// caepnet.org/standards/standards/ . Accessed on 11 November 2014. Council for the Accreditation of Educator Preparation (CAEP). 2015. “CAEP State Partnership Agreements.” http://caepnet.org/working-together/states/state-partnershipagreements/ . Accessed on 11 January 2015. Council for the Accreditation of Educator Preparation/American Association of School Librarians (CAEP/AASL). 2014. “CAEP/AASL School Librarianship Education Programs.” http://www. ala.org/aasl/education/ncate/programs. Accessed on 12 September 2014. Hannigan, Jane Anne. 1984. “Vision to Purpose to Power.” In Libraries and the Learning Society: Papers in Response to A Nation at Risk, 22–62. Chicago: ALA. IFLA. 2015. IFLA School Library Guidelines Draft. [Draft dated 12 January 2015.]

 14 Guiding the Preparation of School Librarians in the United States, 1984–2014 

 189

Miller, Marilyn L. 1989. “ALA, NCATE, and the Preparation of School Library Media Specialists.” Library Administration & Management 3(3):131–134. National Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE). 2012 “Program Report for the Preparation of School Librarians American Library Association/American Association of School Librarians (ALA/AASL) Option A.” http://aims.ncate.org/ProgRev/Agreements/ Form339.pdf. Accessed on 12 September 2014. National Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE). 2014. “NCATE 2000: Teacher Education and Performance Based Reform.” http://www.ncate.org/Portals/0/ documents/Accreditation/article_aera.pdf. Accessed on 14 November 2014. “NCATE Approves Preparation Guidelines.” 1988. School Library Journal 35(4):17. Sullivan, Peggy. 1984. “Libraries and the Learning Society: Relationships and Linkages Among Libraries.” In Libraries and the Learning Society: Papers in Response to A Nation at Risk, 110–145. Chicago: ALA. United States. Commission on Excellence in Education. 1984. Libraries and the Learning Society: Papers in Response to A Nation at Risk. Chicago: ALA.

Rae-Anne Montague

15 Preparing Next-generation School 15 Librarians 15 Preparing Next-generation School Librarians

School Library Education in Hawaiʻi Abstract: Programme development to support next-generation school librarians is an iterative process that relies on systematic review. Consideration and development of guidelines and standards are essential aspects of this growth. This chapter explores how research-based frameworks combined with trends in educational reform have shaped library and information science education for school librarianship at the University of Hawaiʻi. Keywords: United States of America; Hawaiʻi; School library education; Accreditation; Curriculum development; Library education programme standards; Library education programme assessment; Professional standards for school librarians.

Introduction In recent years, critical standards and guidelines have emerged at the international and national levels to improve the quality of school library programmes and to strengthen the preparation of school librarians. These guidelines have provided valuable direction and areas of action for professional development and training at the local levels. This chapter considers how these frameworks have shaped library and information science (LIS) education for school librarianship. It also reviews the unique context in the state of Hawaiʻi that influences the LIS Program’s directions, the iterative model of curriculum review, resulting actions and outcomes, and the ongoing assessment processes.

Progressive Context The University of Hawaiʻi (UH) was established in 1907. It has grown to include ten campuses and dozens of educational and research centers located across the Hawaiian Islands. The largest campus is Mānoa, located in the state capital, Honolulu. UH Mānoa (UHM) houses the Hawaiʻinuiākea School of Hawaiian



15 Preparing Next-generation School Librarians 

 191

Knowledge (HSHK) (University of Hawaiʻi 2015a), which aims to pursue, perpetuate, research, and revitalize all areas and forms of Hawaiian knowledge. UHM is committed to being a Hawaiian place of learning and fostering access to indigenous knowledge and values with all students. Within the UH System, shared values include aloha – a Hawaiian word meaning compassion and peace, collaboration, respect, intellectual rigour, integrity, service, access, affordability, diversity, fairness, innovation, accountability and sustainability. The University motto is Maluna aʻe o nā lāhui a pau ke ola ke kanaka – “Above all nations is humanity” (University of Hawaiʻi 2015c). The Graduate School of Library Studies was founded in 1965 at UHM. Fifty years later, the mission of the LIS Program is to educate individuals for careers as librarians and information specialists and to undertake instruction, research and service programmes that meet current and emerging library, information and technology needs (University of Hawaiʻi 2015b). The LIS Program supports the Department’s and the University’s missions by developing leadership in a diverse local, national and international population with an emphasis on Hawaiʻi and the Asia-Pacific region. The UH LIS Program is the only professional preparation programme for librarianship in Hawaiʻi. Over 90% of the licensed school librarians in the state are graduates of the Program, which has been accredited by the American Library Association since its inception (ALA 2008). The Hawaiʻi State Department of Education (HIDOE), which is comprised of 255 K-12 (Kindergarten to Grade 12) schools and 34 charter schools, is the only statewide public education system in the United States. (Charter schools are schools that receive public funding but operate independently of the established public school system in which they are located.) The school district can be thought of as analogous to the school districts of other cities and communities in the United States, but in some ways it can also be thought of as analogous to the state education agencies of other states. Residents of Hawaiʻi are culturally diverse. According to the 2013 Superintendent’s Annual Report (State of Hawaiʻi 2014a), the majority of students enrolled in Hawaiʻi’s public schools (59%) have special considerations including being an English-language learner, being economically disadvantaged, having a disability, or having a combination of two or more of these categories. For example, recent US census data indicate over 25% of residents speak a language other than English at home (United States Census Bureau 2015). Hawaiʻi has two official languages, English and Hawaiian.

192 

 Rae-Anne Montague

Collaborative Efforts In order to develop viable strategies to meet the educational needs of librarians interested in creating high-quality school libraries to effectively serve the diverse student population in Hawaiʻi, the UH LIS Program has forged strong collegial and collaborative relationships over several decades with the HIDOE, with the Hawaiʻi Teacher Standards Board (HTSB) that licenses public school educators, with the Hawaiʻi Association of School Librarians (HASL), and with the UH College of Education. These educational partnerships are informed by faculty’s active engagement in the profession’s international and national initiatives. In particular, Professor Emerita Violet Harada has played a key role in strengthening these collaborations, which have ensured that all agencies are aware of current international and national guidelines, such as the IFLA/UNESCO School Library Manifesto (1999), IFLA School Library Advocacy Kit (2014) and AASL Empowering Learners (2009), and that they are intentionally incorporating the major tenets of these documents into the agencies’ publications. In 2012, the HTSB approved School Librarian Performance Standards (State of Hawaiʻi 2012) for licensing and relicensing school librarians; and in 2014, the HIDOE finalized a rubric, Elements of a Quality School Library Media Program, for K-12 schools (State of Hawaiʻi 2014b). HIDOE’s Elements of a Quality School Library Media Program is divided into three main sections identified by AASL as pillars of vital importance to high-quality library programmes. Each section includes several key areas for librarians to develop: 1. Building the Environment a. Facility – Physical and virtual spaces; b. Staff – To provide a comprehensive range of services; c. Budget – Adequate and sustained funding to fulfill the mission; d. Resources – Collection with resources in various formats; e. Climate – Safe, respectful, and conductive to learning; f. Equitable Access – To support students’ academic and personal needs; g. Educational Technology – To improve student learning. 2. Empowering Learning through Leadership a. Professional Development – Continuous growth and new opportunities; b. Planning and Evaluation – Program review to support student achieve ment; c. Advocacy and Communication – Proactive communication to stake holders; d. Instructional Leadership – Promote learning within school community; e. Administrative Support – Integral component of educational model.



3.

15 Preparing Next-generation School Librarians 

 193

Teaching for Learning. a. Instructional Program – Provide meaningful learning opportunities; b. Collaborative Planning – With teachers and other community members; c. Assessment for Learning – Student-centered review; d. Inquiry Learning – Students ask questions, gather information, and make decisions; e. Information Literacy – Students locate, evaluate, and use information; f. Reading – Foster independent, complex, and life-long reading; g. Intellectual Freedom – Promote rights of individuals to seek information from diverse points of view; h. Social Learning – Promote ethical sharing of knowledge; i. Social responsibility – Express ideas in a safe, responsible, and ethical manner.

In addition to discussing elements of high-quality school library programmes, the document also provides examples of evidence (e.g., data and artifacts) that can be used to demonstrate effectiveness.

Model for Systematic Change As Yi and Turner (2014) describe in their extensive review of school librarianship programs across the country, revising curriculum is not an easy process. That said, the rapidly changing professional landscape requires programmes to review curricula regularly in order to meet emerging needs. In the context of UH LIS, this review begins at the Program level. Under the leadership of the Curriculum Committee, comprised of several faculty members and student representatives, the Program implements a systematic and iterative review process that incorporates input and feedback from stakeholder communities, strategic planning retreats, identification of specific targets for action, and continuous assessment of outcomes. Importantly, all changes proposed must also be aligned with international and national standards for information professionals. In the last three years, the Curriculum Committee’s most ambitious undertakings have been an in-depth review of the Program’s core courses and the establishment of student learning outcomes. Core review: The process began with informal focus groups conducted with field professionals and key employers represented on the Program’s advisory board. This led to presentations by core course instructors to apprise faculty and students of current emphases and goals in these classes. Subsequent discussions

194 

 Rae-Anne Montague

at monthly faculty meetings led to modifications in course focus and activities. For example, in LIS 610 “Foundations of the Information Professions”, increased emphasis was placed on preparation for careers in a variety of information professions, application of critical thinking skills in a professional context, and crafting a professional identity. Student learning outcomes: With the finalization of the ALA’s Core Competences of Librarianship (2009), the faculty revisited the Program’s learning outcomes. After a series of faculty discussions with input from student representatives and other stakeholders, the Program identified five major learning outcomes: 1. Understand, apply and articulate the history, philosophy, principles and ethics of library and information science and the related professions; 2. Develop, administrate, assess, and advocate for information services by exercising principled communication, teamwork and leadership skills; 3. Organize, create, archive, preserve, retrieve, manage, evaluate, and disseminate information resources in a variety of formats; 4. Evaluate and use the latest information technologies, research findings and methods; 5. Engage in projects and assignments dealing with multicultural communities and representing diverse points of view. Each learning outcome includes a longer list of more specific indicators that serve as examples of how the outcome might be measured. These are available in Appendix A. The review process also led to the addition of a course in basic database searching (LIS 663). As a result, the current coursework required for the Master of Library and Information Science degree is 39 credits (13 courses) including six core courses (LIS 610 “Foundations of the Information Professions”; LIS 601 “Introduction to Reference & Information Services”; LIS 605 “Metadata Creation for Information Organizations”; LIS 663 “Database Searching”; LIS 615 “Collection Management”, and either LIS 650 “Management of Libraries & Information Centers” or, for students in the School Library Media Track, LIS 684 “Administration of School Library Media Centers”); a course with an emphasis on technology integration; and six elective courses. For the school library specialization, the elective component must include a course on information literacy and instruction, a practicum, and two courses focusing on services for children and young adults.



15 Preparing Next-generation School Librarians 

 195

School Library Media Specialization Expectations and Curriculum In conjunction with ongoing curricular review efforts and informative exchange with local agencies, the Program identified the following critical targets for evolving improvements in the curriculum for school library media students: –– designing instruction that incorporates multiple literacies and is informed by research; –– integrating the use of a range of digital tools and apps for learning and teaching; –– creating physical and virtual spaces that are vibrant learning centres; –– curating information for anywhere and anytime access; –– developing a vision and goals for digital age school communities; and –– creating and using tools and strategies for evidence-based practice. Equally important is the pedagogy employed to engage LIS students in the active acquisition of these professional skills. Many instructors have moved toward a project-focused approach that connects theories and research with real-world applications and serves as a model for school library engagement (see, for example, Harada, Kirio and Yamamoto 2008). They have also incorporated more self-assessment activities and opportunities for collaborative group work as part of the problem-solving and design-planning processes. The school library specialization requirements include school library administration, information literacy and instruction and a practicum in a school library. Highlights of these courses follow. Administration of School Library Media Centers (LIS 684): This course covers principles and processes underlying the successful administration of a school library media centre and focuses on the changing roles and responsibilities of an effective and proactive school library media specialist. Michelle Colte, librarian at Hale Kula Elementary School in Wahiawa, HI, recently named School Library Journal’s Librarian of the Year, serves as a distinguished example of leadership in this realm (Philpot 2014). LIS 684 considers the primary roles of the school librarian: contributing to the mission and goals of the school, promoting access to information through physical and digital collections, implementing inquiry- and curriculum-based lessons and programmes, collaborating with teachers and administrators, and keeping up with educational trends, leadership, and evaluation (Bell, Kuon and Lambert, 2014). Students have opportunities to engage in inquiry learning and consider effective models and practices based on documents such as the IFLA

196 

 Rae-Anne Montague

School Library Guidelines (2002, 2015). Text- and class-based activities are supplemented by discussions with professionals who serve as guest speakers, visits to local sites with innovative programmes, such as Oʻahu Makerspace (2015), and engagement in conversations of national and global interest via San José State University’s Library Worldwide Virtual Conference (2015). Information Literacy and Learning Resources (LIS 686): This course introduces students to elements of instructional design including the analysis of targeted learners, creation of precise and measurable learning goals aligned with criteria for assessing learning, and descriptions of guided learning procedures that begin with demonstrations and modelling and end with independent practice. Learning theories are incorporated with research-based pedagogical strategies. Instruction in information literacy is presented as a process in critical thinking and application that is best delivered as a collaborative experience with classroom teachers – beyond testing scores (Ennis 2000, Johnson 2007). The students develop essential questions to frame problem-based units of study and integrate emerging technologies (e.g., Animoto, Story Kit, Easel.ly) into their lessons. Students also engage in rounds of peer critiquing as they draft and revise their lessons. Practicum for School Librarianship (LIS 696): This course is usually taken in the student’s final semester of study. Students are assigned to libraries where mentor librarians demonstrate strong evidence of programmes that engage students and faculty in digital-age learning practices and facilitate a culture of inquiry (Gordon 2010). Integral components of the practicum include designing and implementing lessons, engaging in activities that advocate for the library programme, designing tools and strategies for evaluating specific services or events, and conducting professional development activities for faculty. Students have opportunities to consider and facilitate engagement aligned both with specific goals and broad standards, such as Common Core, a set of academic standards used in most states to outline what students should know and be able to do at the end of each year (Achieve and American Association of School Librarians 2013). The use of Common Core Standards for English Language Arts (ELA) and mathematics was implemented in Hawaiʻi in 2013–14. Standards for ELA emphasise building knowledge through content-rich non-fiction; using evidence from text; and gaining practice with complex text. Mathematics standards include reasoning, modelling, using tools, and attending to precision and structure. Self-reflection is crucial in the practicum course. Students produce electronic logs of their experiences framed as incidents; they share their logs with peers and exchange insights and suggestions. The logging experience is a step toward building a thoughtful professional community and encourages grappling with critical questions about the challenges of being an effective school librarian today



15 Preparing Next-generation School Librarians 

 197

such as those posed by Fontichiaro and Hamilton (2014). For example, what qualitative and quantitative metrics best inform quality school librarianship? Does being a “good” librarian mean working within existing culture – or changing it? If we aim too high, are we setting ourselves up to fail – and is that okay? The culminating activity requires students to create an electronic portfolio of their accomplishments. They use a rubric that is based on the ALA/AASL Standards for Initial Preparation of School Librarians (2010) to assess their achievements; the practicum coordinator also uses the rubric to provide feedback. (See Appendix B.) Along with the required courses for school librarianship, students take at least six credit hours, two courses, focused on services for children and young adults. One popular example is LIS 681. Books and Media for Children (LIS 681): This course examines history and criticism of children’s literature; contemporary books and media; trends in book publishing and media production; developmental needs and interests of children; selection and evaluation, and research studies. Students are exposed to a wide range of traditional and modern literature and diverse materials including highly recommended, popular, and controversial books – and local initiatives such as the Nēnē Award (R.E.A.D. 2014), Hawaiʻi’s children’s choice book award (Naidoo 2014). Class activities provide opportunities to construct understanding and methods for interacting with text and developing robust collections, which enable young people to envision and create potential futures (Rothbauer 2006). Extended engagement encourages students to formulate a philosophy related to working with children and literature. Elective courses developed around specialized areas of LIS and particular user groups are also available to students pursuing school librarianship. Many encourage critical consideration of trends and current practice emphasising literacy and community engagement, including: –– Graphic Novels (LIS 693): In this seminar, students explore comics and graphic novels for all ages, particularly children and young adult titles. Students consider the history of graphic novels, collection development, programming, censorship, and book-talking. Emphasis is placed on Asian and Asian-American titles including web comics and online comic resources; –– Information Services for Indigenous Peoples (LIS 693): This course provides an introduction to philosophies, issues, and activities with and for indigenous populations. Students consider cases, collections, policies and services through discussion, research, and project work (see, for example, Roy and Frydman 2013); –– Library Services for Youth in Custody (LIS 693): This course introduces students to library services for youth in custody, with a particular focus on juvenile correctional facilities. It covers service models, collections, program-

198 

 Rae-Anne Montague

ming, justice frameworks, intellectual freedom, and outreach. These topics provide insights for working with underserved populations (Hughes-Hassell et al. 2012). Students develop a library programme and complete a final project on an issue relevant to library services for youth in custody (Austin 2012); –– Planning and Developing Digital Library Instruction (LIS 694): This course introduces relevant principles and guidelines for instructional design that influence digital instruction in various library settings. Students develop an instructional plan for a specific library context and patron need. They also create a digital learning activity to implement the plan. Activities focus on a range of user needs including refining information search strategies, promoting literacy, accessing specific databases, dealing with key aspects of the research process, or assisting with on-demand reference services. In addition to course requirements, students are encouraged to participate in extracurricular activities and organizations, which provide leadership development and networking opportunities. All registered LIS students are automatically part of Hui Dui, the student organization of LIS. Hui Dui represents students at faculty and other committee meetings. Hui Dui also sponsors lecture series and social events. Other groups, such as the American Library Association (ALA) student chapter, which works to promote scholarly achievement and professional awareness, are affiliated with national organizations. A state level organization, Nā Hawaiʻi ‘Imi Loa, a recently formed student group whose mission is to serve the Hawaiian community, strengthens the native Hawaiian presence in LIS, emphasising local issues and hosting events such as the Ho’okele Na’auao Hawaiian Librarianship Symposium and an annual community archival training workshop.

Programme Assessment Assessing the quality of the Program has moved from reporting inputs such as number of courses offered and impressions garnered through student course evaluations and graduating student surveys to the demonstrated performance of the students. For this purpose, the faculty has agreed on multiple measures of performance to establish a composite profile of the quality of work accomplished. One such measure is the oral comprehensive examination, which is an hour-long, scenario-based examination that students deliver extemporaneously. The scenarios are published on the Program’s website so that students may select and prepare



15 Preparing Next-generation School Librarians 

 199

for the exam in advance. All scenarios are aligned with the Program’s student learning outcomes. Two faculty members serve as examiners who use rubrics to rate the performances. The results are aggregated by a member of the Curriculum Committee and brought to a faculty meeting for discussion and action. Another measure that the Program has introduced is a course-level assessment where every instructor is asked to identify one or more key assignments in the class and rate students on a scale of 1 (not meeting) through 4 (exceeding) on the quality of their work. These assignments are also aligned with the student learning outcomes, and these results are aggregated and shared with faculty.

Next Steps In order to be effective educational leaders, school librarians are charged to consider how to apply a broad range of concepts through a variety of means in order to facilitate student engagement. Standards and guidelines introduced as part of LIS education at UH strengthen the preparation of school librarians by offering frameworks and direction to support ongoing efforts to improve the quality of school library programmes. Faculty draws on these research-based models in conjunction with fundamental professional and community-based content and approaches to offer a robust curriculum grounded in outcomes defined by student learning. Programme development to support next generation school librarians is an iterative process that relies on systematic review incorporating guidelines and standards, theoretical understanding, and input from stakeholder communities.

References Achieve and American Association of School Librarians. 2013. “Implementing the Common Core State Standards”. http://www.ala.org/aasl/sites/ala.org.aasl/files/content/ externalrelations/CCSSLibrariansBrief_FINAL.pdf. Accessed on 15 January 2015. American Association of School Librarians (AASL). 2009. Empowering Learners: Guidelines for School Library Programs. Chicago: AASL. American Library Association (ALA). 2008. “Standards for Accreditation of Master’s Programs in Library & Information Studies.” http://www.ala.org/accreditedprograms/sites/ala. org.accreditedprograms/files/content/standards/standards_2008.pdf. Accessed on 15 January 2015.

200 

 Rae-Anne Montague

American Library Association. 2009. “Core Competences of Librarianship.” http://www.ala. org/educationcareers/sites/ala.org.educationcareers/files/content/careers/corecomp/ corecompetences/finalcorecompstat09.pdf. Accessed on 23 February 2015. American Library Association/American Association of School Librarians (ALA/AASL). 2010. “ALA/AASL Standards for the Initial Preparation of School Librarians.” http://www.ala.org/ aasl/sites/ala.org.aasl/files/content/aasleducation/schoollibrary/2010_standards_and_ items_with_statements_of_scope.pdf . Accessed on 15 January 2015. See Appendix B. Austin, Jeanie. 2012. “Critical Issues in Juvenile Detention Center Libraries.” The Journal of Research on Libraries and Young Adults. http://www.yalsa.ala.org/jrlya/2012/07. Accessed on 15 January 2015. Bell, Mary Ann, Tricia Kuon and Jarod Lambert. 2014. “Iceberg: The Cold, Hard Facts About School Librarians’ Duties.” Library Media Connection 33(1): 24–27. Ennis, Robert. 2000. “An Outline of Goals for a Critical Thinking Curriculum and Its Assessment.” http://criticalthinking.net/goals.html. Accessed on 15 January 2015. Fontichiaro, Kristin and Buffy Hamilton. 2014. “Undercurrents.” Knowledge Quest 43(1): 56–59. Gordon, Carol A. 2010. “The Culture of Inquiry in School Libraries.” School Libraries Worldwide 16(1): 73–88. http://iasl-online.mlanet.org/Resources/Documents/slw/v16/16_1Gordon. pdf. Accessed on 15 January 2015. Harada, Violet H., Carolyn H. Kirio and Sandra H. Yamamoto. 2008. Collaborating for Project-based Learning in Grades 9–12. Columbus, OH: Linworth Books. Hughes-Hassell, Sandra, Kafi Kumasi, Casey H. Rawson and Amanda Hitson. 2012. Building a Bridge to Literacy for African American Male Youth: A Call to Action for the Library Community. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill School of Information and Library Science. http://bridgetolit.web.unc.edu/files/2012/09/BuildingA-Bridge-to-Literacy-for-African-American-Males.pdf. Accessed on 15 January 2015. IFLA. 1999. IFLA/UNESCO School Library Manifesto. The Hague: IFLA Headquarters. http://www. ifla.org/publications/iflaunesco-school-library-manifesto-1999. Accessed on 30 January 2015. IFLA. 2014. “School Library Advocacy Kit.” http://www.ifla.org/publications/school-libraryadvocacy-kit. Accessed on 15 January 2015. IFLA. 2015. IFLA School Library Guidelines Draft. [Draft dated 12 January 2015.] Johnson, Doug. 2007. “Can School Media Programs Help Raise Standardized Test Scores.” http://www.doug-johnson.com/dougwri/can-school-media-programs-help-raisestandardized-test-score.html. Accessed on 15 January 2015. Naidoo, Jaime Campbell. 2014. The Importance of Diversity in Library Programs and Material Collections for Children. Chicago, IL: Association for Library Service to Children. http:// www.ala.org/alsc/sites/ala.org.alsc/files/content/ALSCwhitepaper_importance of diversity_with graphics_FINAL.pdf. Accessed on 15 January 2015. “O’Ahu Makerspace.” 2015. http://oahumakerspace.com/. Accessed on 15 January 2015. Philpot, Chelsey. 2014. “Meet Michelle Colte, SLJ’s School Librarian of the Year” School Library Journal September. http://www.slj.com/2014/09/librarians/meet-michelle-colte-sljsschool-librarian-of-the-year. Accessed on 15 January 2015. “R.E.A.D. for Nēnē.” 2014. http://nene.k12.hi.us. Accessed on 15 January 2015. Rothbauer, Paulette. 2006. “Young Adults and Reading.” In Reading Matters: What the Research Reveals about Reading, Libraries, and Community, 101–132. Westport, CT: Libraries Unlimited.



15 Preparing Next-generation School Librarians 

 201

Roy, Loriene and Antonia Frydman. 2013. “Library Service to Indigenous Populations: Case Studies.” http://www.ifla.org/files/assets/indigenous-matters/publications/indigenouslibrarianship-2013.pdf. Accessed on 15 January 2015. Sætre, Tove Pemmer and Glenys Willars. 2002. IFLA/UNESCO School Library Guidelines. The Hague: IFLA Headquarters. IFLA professional Reports, No. 77 [Revised edition of Professional Report No. 20]. http://www.ifla.org/files/assets/hq/publications/ professional-report/77.pdf. Accessed on 17 February 2015. San José State University School of Information. 2015. “Library 2.0 – the Future of Libraries in the Digital Age.” http://www.library20.com. Accessed on 15 January 2015. State of Hawaiʻi. 2012. “School Librarian Performance Standards.” Hawaiʻi Teacher Standards Board. Accessed January 15, 2015. http://www.htsb.org/standards/librarian. State of Hawaiʻi. 2014a. “2013 Superintendent’s 24th Annual Report.” Accountability Resource Center Hawaiʻi June 2014. http://arch.k12.hi.us/PDFs/state/superintendent_report/2013/ 2013SuptRptFinal20140806.pdf. Accessed on 15 January 2015. State of Hawaiʻi. 2014b. “Elements of a Quality School Library Media Program.” Hawaiʻi State Department of Education. 16 September 2014. United States Census Bureau. 2015. “State and County Quick Facts.” http://quickfacts.census. gov/qfd/states/15000.html. Accessed on 15 January 2015. University of Hawaiʻi. 2015a. “Hawaiʻinuiākea School of Hawaiian Knowledge.” http://manoa. hawaii.edu/hshk. Accessed 15 January 2015. University of Hawaiʻi. 2015b. “Library and Information Science Program.” http://www.hawaii. edu/lis. Accessed on 15 January 2015. University of Hawaiʻi. 2015c. “University of Hawaiʻi System Overview.” http://www.hawaii.edu/ about. Accessed on 15 January 2015. Yi, Kwan, and Ralph Turner. 2014. “The Current Landscape of the School Librarianship Curricula in the USA.” Journal of Education for Library and Information Science 55(4): 303–21.

Appendix A University of Hawaiʻi at Mānoa Library and Information Science Program Student Learning Outcomes The Program’s primary goal is for students to acquire the knowledge, skills, and values that are fundamental to professional competence and career-long growth in the library and information services field. The Program seeks to implement its primary goal through the Master of Library & Information Science curriculum based on five student learning objectives (SLOs) are: SLO 1: Understand, apply and articulate the history, philosophy, principles and ethics of library and information science and the related professions. 1a) Apply LIS theory and principles to diverse information contexts; 1b) Demonstrate understanding of the historical context of information services and systems;

202 

 Rae-Anne Montague

1c) Develop and apply critical thinking skills in preparation for professional practice; 1d) Craft and articulate a professional identity. SLO 2: Develop, administrate, assess, and advocate for information services by exercising principled communication, teamwork and leadership skills. 2a) Demonstrate understanding of leadership; 2b) Work effectively in teams; 2c) Develop, manage, and assess information services for specific users and communities; 2d) Create instructional and outreach programs; 2e) Demonstrate the ability to advocate effectively for information services. SLO 3: Organize, create, archive, preserve, retrieve, manage, evaluate, and disseminate information resources in a variety of formats. 3a) Demonstrate understanding of the processes by which information is created, evaluated, and disseminated; 3b) Organize, create, archive and manage collections of information resources following professional standards; 3c) Search, retrieve and synthesize information from a variety of systems and sources; 3d) Demonstrate understanding of issues and techniques of preservation of physical and digital objects. SLO 4: Evaluate and use the latest information technologies, research findings and methods. 4a) Evaluate systems and technologies in terms of quality, functionality, cost-effectiveness and adherence to professional standards; 4b) Integrate emerging technologies into professional practice; 4c) Apply current research findings to professional practice. SLO 5: Engage in projects and assignments dealing with multicultural communities and representing diverse points of view. 5a) Communicate and collaborate with diverse colleagues, information seekers and community stakeholders; 5b) Demonstrate understanding of the social, cultural, political, and economic context of information services and systems; 5c) Apply LIS principles to meet the needs of Native Hawaiian and Asia-Pacific communities and to promote cultural sustainability. With the attainment of these five objectives, students are expected to be ready to interpret and apply the understanding gained to performance and leadership in the field.



15 Preparing Next-generation School Librarians 

 203

As part of the curriculum review process, faculty map SLOs and evidence indicators to correspond with all regularly offered UH LIS Program courses. Additional information is available on the website http://www.hawaii.edu/lis/ about-us/vision-values-mission.1

Appendix B ALA/AASL Standards and Elements for Initial Preparation of School Librarians (2010) Standard 1: Teaching for Learning Candidates are effective teachers who demonstrate knowledge of learners and learning and who model and promote collaborative planning, instruction in multiple literacies, and inquiry-based learning, enabling members of the learning community to become effective users and creators of ideas and information. Candidates design and implement instruction that engages students’ interests and develops their ability to inquire, think critically, gain and share knowledge.

Elements 1.1 Knowledge of learners and learning Candidates are knowledgeable of learning styles, stages of human growth and development, and cultural influences on learning. Candidates assess learner needs and design instruction that reflects educational best practice. Candidates support the learning of all students and other members of the learning community, including those with diverse learning styles, physical and intellectual abilities and needs. Candidates base twenty-first century skills instruction on student interests and learning needs and link it to the assessment of student achievement.

1.2 Effective and knowledgeable teacher Candidates implement the principles of effective teaching and learning that contribute to an active, inquiry-based approach to learning. Candidates make use of a variety of instructional strategies and assessment tools to design and develop digital-age learning experiences and assessments in partnership with classroom 1 Website accessed on 26 February 2015.

204 

 Rae-Anne Montague

teachers and other educators. Candidates can document and communicate the impact of collaborative instruction on student achievement.

1.3 Instructional partner Candidates model, share, and promote effective principles of teaching and learning as collaborative partners with other educators. Candidates acknowledge the importance of participating in curriculum development, of engaging in school improvement processes, and of offering professional development to other educators as it relates to library and information use.

1.4 Integration of twenty-first century skills and learning standards Candidates advocate for twenty-first century literacy skills to support the learning needs of the school community. Candidates demonstrate how to collaborate with other teachers to plan and implement instruction of the AASL Standards for the 21st-Century Learner and state student curriculum standards. Candidates employ strategies to integrate multiple literacies with content curriculum. Candidates integrate the use of emerging technologies as a means for effective and creative teaching and to support P-12 students’ conceptual understanding, critical thinking and creative processes.

Standard 2: Literacy and Reading Candidates promote reading for learning, personal growth, and enjoyment. Candidates are aware of major trends in children’s and young adult literature and select reading materials in multiple formats to support reading for information, reading for pleasure, and reading for lifelong learning. Candidates use a variety of strategies to reinforce classroom reading instruction to address the diverse needs and interests of all readers.

Elements 2.1 Literature Candidates are familiar with a wide range of children’s, young adult, and professional literature in multiple formats and languages to support reading for information, reading for pleasure, and reading for lifelong learning.



15 Preparing Next-generation School Librarians 

 205

2.2 Reading promotion Candidates use a variety of strategies to promote leisure reading and model personal enjoyment of reading in order to promote habits of creative expression and lifelong reading.

2.3 Respect for diversity Candidates demonstrate the ability to develop a collection of reading and information materials in print and digital formats that support the diverse developmental, cultural, social, and linguistic needs of P-12 students and their communities.

2.4 Literacy strategies Candidates collaborate with classroom teachers to reinforce a wide variety of reading instructional strategies to ensure P-12 students are able to create meaning from text.

Standard 3: Information and Knowledge Candidates model and promote ethical, equitable access to and use of physical, digital, and virtual collections of resources. Candidates demonstrate knowledge of a variety of information sources and services that support the needs of the diverse learning community. Candidates demonstrate the use of a variety of research strategies to generate knowledge to improve practice.

Elements 3.1 Efficient and ethical information-seeking behavior Candidates identify and provide support for diverse student information needs. Candidates model multiple strategies for students, other teachers, and administrators to locate, evaluate, and ethically use information for specific purposes. Candidates collaborate with students, other teachers, and administrators to efficiently access, interpret, and communicate information.

3.2 Access to information Candidates support flexible, open access for library services. Candidates demonstrate their ability to develop solutions for addressing physical, social and intel-

206 

 Rae-Anne Montague

lectual barriers to equitable access to resources and services. Candidates facilitate access to information in print, non-print, and digital formats. Candidates model and communicate the legal and ethical codes of the profession.

3.3 Information technology Candidates demonstrate their ability to design and adapt relevant learning experiences that engage students in authentic learning through the use of digital tools and resources. Candidates model and facilitate the effective use of current and emerging digital tools to locate, analyse, evaluate, and use information resources to support research, learning, creating, and communicating in a digital society.

3.4 Research and knowledge creation Candidates use evidence-based, action research to collect data. Candidates interpret and use data to create and share new knowledge to improve practice in school libraries.

Standard 4: Advocacy and Leadership Candidates advocate for dynamic school library programs and positive learning environments that focus on student learning and achievement by collaborating and connecting with teachers, administrators, librarians, and the community. Candidates are committed to continuous learning and professional growth and lead professional development activities for other educators. Candidates provide leadership by articulating ways in which school libraries contribute to student achievement.

Elements 4.1. Networking with the library community Candidates demonstrate the ability to establish connections with other libraries and to strengthen cooperation among library colleagues for resource sharing, networking, and facilitating access to information. Candidates participate and collaborate as members of a social and intellectual network of learners.



15 Preparing Next-generation School Librarians 

 207

4.2 Professional development Candidates model a strong commitment to the profession by participating in professional growth and leadership opportunities through membership in library associations, attendance at professional conferences, reading professional publications, and exploring Internet resources. Candidates plan for ongoing professional growth.

4.3 Leadership Candidates are able to articulate the role and relationship of the school library program’s impact on student academic achievement within the context of current educational initiatives. Utilizing evidence-based practice and information from education and library research, candidates communicate ways in which the library program can enhance school improvement efforts.

4.4 Advocacy Candidates identify stakeholders within and outside the school community who impact the school library program. Candidates develop a plan to advocate for school library and information programs, resources, and services.

Standard 5: Program Management and Administration Candidates plan, develop, implement, and evaluate school library programs, resources, and services in support of the mission of the library program within the school according to the ethics and principles of library science, education, management, and administration.

Elements 5.1 Collections Candidates evaluate and select print, non-print, and digital resources using professional selection tools and evaluation criteria to develop and manage a quality collection designed to meet the diverse curricular, personal, and professional needs of students, teachers, and administrators. Candidates organize school library collections according to current library cataloging and classification principles and standards.

208 

 Rae-Anne Montague

5.2 Professional Ethics Candidates practice the ethical principles of their profession, advocate for intellectual freedom and privacy, and promote and model digital citizenship and responsibility. Candidates educate the school community on the ethical use of information and ideas.

5.3 Personnel, Funding, and Facilities Candidates apply best practices related to planning, budgeting, and evaluating human, information, and physical resources. Candidates organize library facilities to enhance the use of information resources and services and to ensure equitable access to all resources for all users. Candidates develop, implement, and evaluate policies and procedures that support teaching and learning in school libraries.

5.4 Strategic Planning and Assessment Candidates communicate and collaborate with students, teachers, administrators, and community members to develop a library program that aligns resources, services, and standards with the school’s mission. Candidates make effective use of data and information to assess how the library program addresses the needs of their diverse communities.

Lesley S. J. Farmer

16 The Symbiotic Relationship between 16 Standards and Programmes in School 16 Library Education 16 The Symbiotic Relationship between Standards and Programmes

California’s Experience Abstract: In California three initiatives converged to provide the new framework for state accredited programmes for school library education: California model library content standards for students, revision of the 1991 California Commission on Teacher Credentialing Teacher Librarian Preparation Program Standards, and the development of a California Teacher Librarian Special Class Authorization. This chapter discusses the processes behind these initiatives, including the efforts to get these important documents approved and implemented. This symbiotic relationship between school-library-related standards and stakeholder priorities served as a catalyst for reform within the profession. Keywords: United States of America; California; School library education; Accreditation; Certification; Curriculum development; Library education programme standards; Library education programme assessment; Professional standards for school librarians.

Background Trends in education such as the tension between student engagement and high stakes testing, advances in technology, and globalization have all affected school librarianship. Both at the state and national levels teacher librarians realized the need to revisit library programme standards and the means to ensure high quality programmes. Particularly as economic realities were jeopardizing the hiring of teacher librarians for the state’s 8,000 K-12 schools, California stakeholders needed to address these issues, and demonstrate the value of school libraries to student success.

210 

 Lesley S. J. Farmer

National School Library Standards in the USA School library programmes support the school’s mission, and espouse their own specific mission that aligns with the school’s: to help students and staff become effective users of ideas and information (AASL/AECT 1998). To that end, teacher librarians seek to provide the conditions for optimum learning, through their roles as educators, information specialists, and leaders, which are articulated by AASL’s guidelines for school library programmes, Empowering Learners (2009). Not only do teacher librarians effectively manage resources and services, but they also play a major role in helping students gain 21st-century skills. Complementing AASL’s programme guidelines are its Standards for 21st Century Learners (2007), which reconceptualize and expand upon literacy. The AASL standards include inquiry and critical thinking, application and creation of knowledge, ethical and productive sharing, and the pursuit of personal and aesthetic growth. Each standard is composed of skills, dispositions, responsibilities, and selfassessment strategies. AASL noted the importance of technology skills, and the International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE) developed technology standards for students (2007) and teachers (2008), which includes teacher librarians. These standards address technology operations and concepts, research and information fluency, critical thinking and problem solving, innovation and creativity, communication and collaboration, and digital citizenship. The ISTE standards for teachers emphasise the role that teachers play in order to insure that students are technologically competent: facilitating student learning and creativity, designing digitalage learning experiences and assessments, modelling digital-age professional learning and work, and promoting digital citizenship.

Developing State Information Literacy Standards for California In California, the development of library content standards for students began as a way for school librarians to have a concrete role in curriculum since the approach to embed information literacy standards across the K-12 curriculum in California did not suffice to demonstrate the impact of school librarians. Even when teacher librarians underscored information competencies in various content standards, their own contribution to ensuring those standards was seldom recognized. The California state Education Code (California State Department of Education 2015) provided for the establishment of such content standards. The action



16 The Symbiotic Relationship between Standards and Programmes 

 211

was possible due to the close reading of the state Education Code by State School Library Consultant Barbara Jeffus and Instructional Services Coordinator Susan Martimo. They quickly recruited a steering committee of volunteers, consisting largely of California School Library Association (CSLA) members, to develop student learning outcome standards and school library programme (SLP) standards. Basing their work on the AASL and ISTE standards, the steering committee established four overarching competencies: access information, evaluate information, use information, and integrate information literacy skills into all areas of learning. The group also developed grade-by-grade indicators. Draft versions of the standards were reviewed by other CSLA members and by other stakeholders (educators, librarians, and community members) in public forums and via online surveys. The Model School Library Standards for California Public Schools were developed in 2009 and approved in September 2010.

Developing Conditions for Meeting State School Library Standards The Model School Library Standards included both student learning outcomes and research-based preconditions for school libraries to be able to support those outcomes. The school library programme (SLP) standards were predicated on the assumption that certain resources needed to be in place for student library standards to be addressed effectively. Many other states have SLP standards, but the basis for their factors is seldom made clear. California wanted to make sure that their standards were data-based and measurable, which is now easier to derive since dozens of studies have demonstrated that staffing, collections, services, and facilities impact student learning. To that end, the state Library Consultant Barbara Jeffus saw the need to undergird the standards with research and asked the author to conduct a literature review about school library standards and school library programme factors that significantly positively impact student success. The resultant list of research-tested factors formed the basis for the California school library programme standards: staffing, access, services, and resources. In collaboration with university statistician Dr Alan Safer, the author conducted the research using a mixed methods approach: a content analysis of relevant literature, and statistical analyses to determine significant differences between populations (Farmer and Safer 2010). A meta-analysis of the literature generated a list of SLP variables that were shown to contribute to student academic achievement; these measurable variables formed the draft set of baseline

212 

 Lesley S. J. Farmer

SLP standards: a full-time teacher librarian and paraprofessional, integrated library management system (ILMS) and library web page accessible to students, at least 36 hours of library open hours per week with some flexible scheduling, facilities for at least one class, at least two online database subscriptions, student access to internet-connected computers, collaborative and strategic planning, established policies, and specific services of reader’s advisory, information literacy instruction, and database instruction. To further validate the variables, the researchers compared findings with the 2009 School Library Journal national school library survey (Shontz and Farmer 2009). To be established as a baseline standard for the current edition, at least half of the survey respondents had to meet the specific standard variable (that is, the library did not have to meet all of the factors’ standards). As the next step, the researchers examined the California State Department of Education school library data set, which represents the responses of the department’s annual survey about school sites’ library programmes. At that time, the most current data represented the 2007–2008 library programmes. The researchers compared those library programmes that met the draft baseline standards and those programmes that did not meet the standards using a t-test, followed by an ANOVA statistical analysis to determine the relative significance of the baseline variables. Based on the average number of resources of those school libraries that met all the baseline standards, additional quantitative values were generated to use as standards for budgets, collections, and currency of materials. As with the other baseline standards, the findings of the 2009 School Library Journal survey further legitimized these numbers. The California and national data sets confirmed the findings of dozens of studies correlating school library variables and student academic achievement. The state legislators were impressed with the finalized Model School Library Standards and even increased some of the quantitative measurement standards before approving the standards in in September 2010.

Teacher Librarian Services Credential Program Standards For the Model School Library Standards to be implemented, highly qualified teacher librarians must administer and lead the school sites’ library programmes. Teacher librarian education programmes prepare candidates to demonstrate competence in service and leadership as teacher librarians serving preschool,



16 The Symbiotic Relationship between Standards and Programmes 

 213

K-12, and adult students. These programmes need to address the philosophy, principles and ethics of the field and to ensure that students and staff are effective users of ideas and information through teaching and learning, information access and delivery, collaboration, advocacy, and programme leadership. The programmes should value research, reading, teaching information literacy, and should provide services to the field as they prepare teacher librarian candidates to serve a diverse and changing society. In California, the qualification of teacher librarians falls under the jurisdiction of the state’s Commission on Teacher Credentialing (CTC). To ensure that programmes prepare candidates to meet these challenging expectations, the CTC has developed rigorous standards based on research findings, national and state professional documents, expert opinion, and accepted best practices in the field. California’s teacher librarians must first earn and hold an initial teaching credential (multiple-subject elementary, single-subject secondary school, special education, or more recently a designated subject or adult education). The Teacher Librarian Services Credential is designated as a supplementary credential, and typically consists of 27 to 32 graduate credit units of coursework, including field experience. At the time that California’s Model School Library Standards were being developed, the CTC was operating under 1991 Teacher Librarian Credential Program standards. The Model School Library Standards provided the impetus for revising the California State Teacher Librarian Credential Program standards. It was definitely time to update those preparation programme standards, not only because of the Model School Library Standards, but because of changes in California education and the world itself.

Development of Teacher Librarian Preparation Programme Standards The CTC established an advisory panel that included practitioners, teacher librarian educators, CSLA leaders, classroom teachers and academic librarians. The panel worked in a volunteer capacity, with the CTC providing transportation and lodging for the four meetings. The author represented the California State University system. She wrote the introduction for the overall standards as well as worked on specific subject matter standards. The panel met several times, starting in July 2010 and continuing through to the following spring. The timing was propitious as other national organizations were also re-examining the competencies of librarians. Guiding the development of programme

214 

 Lesley S. J. Farmer

standards were the 2010 National Board for Professional Teaching Standards for Library Media, the 2009 American Library Association Core Competences of Librarianship, the 2010 National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE) Standards for Teacher Librarian Programs, and the 2010 California Model School Library Standards. Most of these standards were organized along clearly stated student learning outcomes. To prepare teacher librarians, six programme standards areas were identified: teaching for learning, multiple literacies (such as reading, technology and information), information and knowledge, leadership and advocacy, programme administration, and equity and diversity. The last area was particularly important to include because of California’s increasingly diverse student population. Each area became the focus for a standard, and specific indicators were developed by the advisory panel for each standard. As with the Model School Library Standards, the preparation programme standards underwent several drafts, with verbal and written input from stakeholders throughout the state. In addition, the CTC and its governing board also held hearings and made suggestions, which the advisory panel took under consideration. The standards were finally adopted by CTC in June 2011.

Special Class Authorization As the advisory panel discussed the programme standard revisions, they realized that the only curriculum that school/teacher librarians could teach, as stipulated in the California Education Code, was training student library aides. To be able to teach an academic course would require a special authorization. At that time, because of budget cuts, some districts were reassigning teacher librarians to the classroom, based on their initial credential qualifications. Several teacher librarians who had worked full-time in the library for over five years were not considered qualified to teach in the classroom and were threatened with dismissal. During one hearing of teacher librarian testimony, the district lawyer thought that teaching the Dewey Decimal Classification system required a credential to teach mathematics. During this same time period, California State law AB 307 was passed and chaptered as an amendment to Section 51871.5 of the state’s Education Code, which required district technology plans to “include a component to educate pupils and teachers on the appropriate and ethical use of information technology in the classroom” (California State Department of Education 2015). To some extent, teacher librarians participated in the creation and passage of this bill.



16 The Symbiotic Relationship between Standards and Programmes 

 215

Similarly, California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger’s Executive Order S-06-09 established a California ICT Digital Literacy initiative to insure that all state residents would be digital literate, noting the need for “a seamless continuum of digital literacy competencies with benchmarks, metrics, assessments and certifications endorsed by the State to identify the ICT digital literacy proficiencies of residents, students, and workers”. At the Federal level, the S 1492 Broadband Data Improvement Act (Public Law 110–385), also titled Protecting Children in the 21st Century Act (2008), mandated that all schools receiving e-rate discounts must teach students “about appropriate online behavior, including interacting with other individuals on social networking sites and in chat rooms and cyberbullying awareness and response”. Fortunately, the CTC was encouraging teaching programmes to develop special authorizations to teach specific content matter, such as an authorization to teach students with Autism Spectrum Disorders. A subcommittee was formed to explore this possibility, on which the author served. The obvious choice for content matter was information and digital literacy. One standard focused on teacher librarians learning the theory and skills, and the other standard focused on instructional design and delivery of these literacies in face-to-face and online settings. As with the teacher librarian services credential standards, these standards included concrete indicators. The Special Class Authorization also underwent scrutiny of state stakeholders and the CTC governing board. The result was the approval by CTC in October 2011 of the Special Class Authorization for Information and Digital Literacies. Of particular note was the requirement that teacher librarians should be able to teach in face-to-face and online environments, which was the first state credential to have that feature.

Monitoring, Evaluation and Assessment As noted above, these three standards initiatives included broad-based input from stakeholders across the state before their eventual approval. Once approved, the standards could be implemented, that is, used in monitoring, evaluation and/or assessing practice for the purpose of improvement in practice. The CTC’s Teacher Librarian Services Credential and Special Class Authorization in Information and Digital Literacy Program Standards (2011) are used in monitoring programmes in teacher librarian education. Any institution that wants to provide the preparation for the credential and authorization of teacher librarians has to be approved by CTC. At this time, four teacher librarian preparation programmes have been approved to provide this credential, and two have

216 

 Lesley S. J. Farmer

been approved to provide the special class authorization. The changes in the programme standards required that existing teacher librarian preparation programmes had to retool their curriculum in light of both the CTC and the Model School Library Standards. Such changes required examination and approval by the university’s curriculum review committee, resulting in more discussion and buy-in by the administration in order to provide needed resources. Typically, the revised curriculum for teacher librarian preparation added more technology, research, diversity, and leadership components. Interestingly, the Special Class Authorization (SCA) attracted some attention initially, but teacher librarians remain wary because they are afraid that they will be assigned to teach basic computer skills rather than higher level thinking about information and technology. Furthermore, few school administrators know or understand the SCA, or are able to configure and schedule the curriculum to address information and digital literacies. CSLA conferences have included sessions about the SCA, providing site-based scenarios for integrating this curriculum. Articles about the SCA have also appeared in administrator journals, but the paradigm is slow to shift. As for the Model School Library Standards, in 2014 CSLA developed a questionnaire based on the standards to publicly recognize those school libraries who meet those standards. CSLA’s Committee for Standards Integration (CSI) also started a programme to recognize websites that align with the standards with a “Seal of Alignment” (http://csla.net/instruction/).1 At their 2014 annual conference, CSLA held a Skunkworks session to help participants create lessons that could be submitted for Seal of Alignment approval. In terms of research, the Model School Library Standards were developed using data that preceded the economic crisis. The author and her co-researcher Alan Safer wanted to know if the Model School Library Standards had made an impact on the school library’s programme of resources and services in California. To that end, they analysed the 2011–2012 California State Department of Education school library survey data to answer the following research questions: –– Has the number of school library programmes meeting the standard changed since the standards were approved? –– Which variables differentiate the school library programmes meeting the state standards from those who do not meet the standards? –– How do the significant variables identified in the 2007–2008 data set compare with the 2011–2012 data set?

1 Website accessed on 23 February 2015.



16 The Symbiotic Relationship between Standards and Programmes 

 217

The researchers used descriptive statistics and decision trees to compare years and to try to develop a predictive model that could help school librarians to focus on factors that would optimize their efforts to meet baseline standards. Their current study could not uncover any visible impact of the approved state standards on the 2011–2012 data, but the time frame was very short to expect any such changes. More current data would be needed, substantiated by interviews with school librarians to explain possible reasons for changes. Furthermore, the economic and political landscape changed in the interim between the two time frames, which could account for changes. After conducting several types of analyses, a Classification and Regression Tree (CART) decision tree provided the best fit to explain the data. Overall funding and the use of a variety of funding sources were major factors in school library programme status. The findings suggested the need for librarians to be aware of these different funding streams, and to take advantage of them, which may require proactive communication and negotiation with decision-makers. Resources and access to them constituted another important “leg” of school library programmes. Books, non-print and online resources are all needed, and some analysis seemed to indicate that not only physical access but intellectual access through instruction is needed in order to make a difference in meeting library standards. In general, there seemed to be a sizable gap between the vast majority of school libraries which are providing basic resources and services and those stellar libraries that have rich collections, innovative services, and expanded access.

Challenges These state initiatives were developed in the midst of economic downfalls and teacher librarian lay-offs. Furthermore, the steering committee and advisory panel had to manage time carefully, balancing this important work with their daily professional lives, especially as their efforts were done on a volunteer basis, with no remuneration. Considering the context of the work, the time frames for the three initiatives were quite short: the Model School Library Standards were developed starting in March 2009, and approved September 2010; the teacher librarian credential preparation standards were developed starting September 2009 and approved June 2011; and the Special Class Authorization was approved October 2011. Philosophically, these initiatives continue to challenge traditional mindsets of educators who do not understand the functions of today’s teacher librarians.

218 

 Lesley S. J. Farmer

Lessons Learned These statewide efforts demonstrate the impact of volunteer commitment with their expert efforts. The state library consultant initiated the model standards project, but it was the work of teacher librarians which provided the substantive content and advocated for its passage by the state legislation. Similarly, volunteer teacher librarians and other educators constituted the advisory panel who wrote the revised state teacher librarian programme standards for California’s educational accreditation body. The use of volunteers guaranteed self-initiative and self-motivation that would lead to greater advocacy of these measures. Several pressures outside of the school library arena impacted these efforts. For instance, technology had changed radically since the time of the last revision of the teacher librarian programme standards of 1991; the advisory panel had to make sure that technology was well integrated into the standards to insure that library programmes, and the professionals managing them, were relevant in the digital age. At the time of these initiatives, the California state legislation was actively promoting digital education, and teacher librarians saw an opportunity to leverage their expertise to provide the instruction needed to prepare students technologically; teacher librarians needed to have an instructional niche in the curriculum, which was missing before. More generally, at the time of these initiatives, California’s economy was in crisis, and teacher librarians were losing their jobs; by proactively developing these standards and instructional authorization, teacher librarians found ways to make themselves more marketable. These outside pressures motivated teacher librarians, and showed that they were not only aware of these dynamics but also knew how to leverage them to their advantage. In short, the symbiotic process fueled by the relationship among the school library stakeholders, and powered by both internal and external pressures, is a useful case study for the teacher librarian profession and for teacher librarian educators specifically.

References Achterman, D. 2008. “Haves, Halves and Have-nots: School Libraries and Student Achievement” (doctoral dissertation, University of North Texas). American Association of School Librarians (AASL). 2007. Standards for the 21st Century Learner. Chicago: American Library Association. http://www.ala.org/ala/mgrps/divs/ aasl/guidelinesandstandards/learningstandards/AASL_Learning_Standards_2007.pdf. Accessed on 15 November 2014.



16 The Symbiotic Relationship between Standards and Programmes 

 219

American Association of School Librarians (AASL). 2009. Empowering Learners: Guidelines for School Library Programs. Chicago: AASL. American Association of School Librarians and Association for Educational Communications and Technology (AASL/AECT). 1998. Information Power: Building Partnerships for Learning. Chicago, IL: American Library Association. American Library Association (ALA). 2009. Core Competences of Librarianship. Chicago, IL: American Library Association. California State Department of Education. 2010. Model School Library Standards for California Public Schools. Sacramento, CA: California State Department of Education. California State Department of Education. 2015. California Education Code. Sacramento, CA: California State Department of Education. Commission on Teacher Credentialing. 2011. Teacher Librarian Services Credential and Special Class Authorization in Information and Digital Literacy Program Standards. Sacramento, CA: Commission on Teacher Credentialing. Farmer, L., and A. Safer. 2010. “Developing California School Library Media Program Standards.” School Library Media Research 13. http://www.ala.org/aasl/sites/ala.org. aasl/files/content/aaslpubsandjournals/slr/vol13/SLR_DevelopingCalifornia_V13.pdf. Accessed on 9 November 2014. International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE). 2007. ISTE Standards: Students. Eugene, OR: ISTE. International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE). 2008. ISTE Standards: Teachers. Eugene, OR: ISTE National Board for Professional Teaching Standards. 2010. Standards for Library Media. Arlington, VA: National Board for Professional Teaching Standards. National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE). 2010. Standards for Teacher Librarian Programs. Washington, DC: National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education. Protecting Children in the 21st Century Act, Pub. L. No. 110–385, Tit. II, 122 Stat. 4096 (2008) Shontz, M., and L. Farmer. 2009. “School Library Journal’s Spending Survey.” School Library Journal 55 (4): 38–44.

Afterword This book would not have been possible without the contributions of the authors and the collaborative efforts of colleagues from the two sponsoring associations. We acknowledge, with thanks, the authors of the chapters, the executive members of IASL and IFLA School Libraries Standing Committee, the members of the IASL/ IFLA School Libraries Joint Committee, and the editorial team of De Gruyter Saur, especially editor Michael Heaney. It has been an honour and a privilege to serve the two Associations and the school library community worldwide. Barbara A. Schultz-Jones and Dianne Oberg Editors 15 February 2015

Appendix Appendix

IFLA/UNESCO School Library Manifesto (1999)1

The School Library in Teaching and Learning for All The school library provides information and ideas that are fundamental to functioning successfully in today’s information and knowledge-based society. The school library equips students with life-long learning skills and develops the imagination, enabling them to live as responsible citizens.

The Mission of the School Library The school library offers learning services, books and resources that enable all members of the school community to become critical thinkers and effective users of information in all formats and media. School Libraries link to the wider library and information network in accord with the principles in the UNESCO Public Library Manifesto. The library staff support the use of books and other information sources, ranging from the fictional to the documentary, from print to electronic, both onsite and remote. The materials complement and enrich textbooks, teaching materials and methodologies. It has been demonstrated that, when librarians and teachers work together, students achieve higher levels of literacy, reading, learning, problem-solving and information and communication technology skills. School library services must be provided equally to all members of the school community, regardless of age, race, gender, religion, nationality, language, professional or social status. Specific services and materials must be provided for those who are unable to use mainstream library services and materials. Access to services and collections should be based on the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Freedoms, and should not be subject to any form of ideological, political or religious censorship, or to commercial pressures.

1 http://www.ifla.org/publications/iflaunesco-school-library-manifesto-1999?og=52. Accessed on 23 February 2015.

222 

 Appendix

Funding legislation and networks The school library is essential to every long-term strategy for literacy, education, information provision and economic, social and cultural development. As the responsibility of local, regional and national authorities, it must be supported by specific legislation and policies. School Libraries must have adequate and sustained funding for trained staff, materials, technologies and facilities. They must be free of charge. The school library is an essential partner in the local, regional and national library and information network. Where the school library shares facilities and/or resources with another type of library, such as a public library, the unique aims of the school library must be acknowledged and maintained.

Goals of the school library The school library is integral to the educational process. The following are essential to the development of literacy, information literacy, teaching, learning and culture and are core school library services: –– supporting and enhancing educational goals as outlined in the school’s mission and curriculum; –– developing and sustaining in children the habit and enjoyment of reading and learning, and the use of libraries throughout their lives; –– offering opportunities for experiences in creating and using information for knowledge, understanding, imagination and enjoyment; –– supporting all students in learning and practising skills for evaluating and using information, regardless of form, format or medium, including sensitivity to the modes of communication within the community; –– providing access to local, regional, national and global resources and opportunities that expose learners to diverse ideas, experiences and opinions; –– organizing activities that encourage cultural and social awareness and sensitivity; –– working with students, teachers, administrators and parents to achieve the mission of the school; –– proclaiming the concept that intellectual freedom and access to information are essential to effective and responsible citizenship and participation in a democracy;



Appendix 

 223

–– promoting reading and the resources and services of the school library to the whole school community and beyond. The school library fulfils these functions by developing policies and services, selecting and acquiring resources, providing physical and intellectual access to appropriate sources of information, providing instructional facilities, and employing trained staff.

Staff The school librarian is the professionally qualified staff member responsible for planning and managing the school library, supported by as adequate staffing as possible, working together with all members of the school community, and liaising with the public library and others. The role of school librarians will vary according to the budget and the curriculum and teaching methodology of the schools, within the national legal and financial framework. Within specific contexts, there are general areas of knowledge that are vital if school librarians are to develop and operate effective school library services: resource, library, and information management and teaching. In an increasingly networked environment, school librarians must be competent in planning and teaching different information-handling skills to both teachers and students. Therefore they must continue their professional training and development.

Operation and Management To ensure effective and accountable operations: –– the policy on school library services must be formulated to define goals, priorities and services in relation to the school’s curriculum; –– the school library must be organized and maintained according to professional standards; –– services must be accessible to all members of the school community and operate within the context of the local community; –– co-operation with teachers, senior school management, administrators, parents, other librarians and information professionals, and community groups must be encouraged.

224 

 Appendix

Implementing the Manifesto Governments, through their ministries responsible for education, are urged to develop strategies, policies and plans which implement the principles of this Manifesto. Plans should include the dissemination of the Manifesto to initial and continuing training programmes for librarians and teachers.

Contributors Contributors Alemu Abebe Woldie is an Ethiopian-born citizen. As a librarian and sociologist, he has worked in the areas of education, intellectual property and science and technology for international and government sectors. He currently works in the non-governmental sector as the Library Development and Management Coordinator for the local NGO, CODE-Ethiopia, which has established nearly 100 libraries in rural communities throughout the country over the past 25 years. Karin Ahlstedt works as coordinating librarian at Pedagogisk Inspiration Malmö, in Southern Sweden. She has many years’ experience of school librarianship and has worked in different kinds of schools, representing all ages. Karin is a member of the school library expert group within the trade union DIK. Inga Andersson is a school librarian at Jenny Nyström Upper Secondary School, in Kalmar, Sweden. She has many years’ experience of school librarianship and has worked in different kinds of schools, representing all ages. She also has worked with students in information and library science at the Linnaeus University. Inga is a member of the school library expert group within the trade union DIK. Marlene Asselin, PhD, is a faculty member at the University of British Columbia working in the areas of literacy, early childhood education, teacher and community librarianship and international development. She works with the Canadian Organization for Development through Education (CODE) and its partner CODE-Ethiopia where she is involved in librarian training. She is part of the research team of the newly launched Africa Storybook Project (http://www.africanstorybook.org/). She has co-authored a new book with Ray Doiron entitled Linking Literacy and Libraries in Global Communities (Farnham: Ashgate, 2013) that focuses on the emerging role of libraries as community partners in global literacy development initiatives. Librarian Mònica Baró, PhD, is professor at the Library and Information Sciences Faculty (University of Barcelona), where she is involved in the Information and Documentation Degree. She is also the Director of the Master of
School Libraries and Reading Promotion. She has worked for 12 years in
 school and public libraries. Mònica Baró is one of the main researchers on school libraries in Spain a 
 nd the co-author of the study Las bibliotecas escolares en España: Dinámicas
2005–2011 (Madrid: Ministerio de Educación, Cultura y Deporte; Fundación Germán Sánchez Ruipérez, 2013). She serves as an adviser to the Department of Education of the Generalitat de
Catalunya. Contact email: [email protected]. Magali Bon currently works as a teacher librarian in a secondary school in France. Qualified in English and German languages, then in teaching French as a foreign language, she taught French in Jordan, Mexico and Slovakia for four years. Back in France, she became a teacher librarian in 2007 and a member of the National Federation of High Schools Librarians in 2013 because she is convinced of the importance of educating young people in media and information. Attending the IFLA Congress in Lyon in 2014 made her renew with the international environment and got her involved in this work.

226 

 Contributors

Elsa Conde has an advanced degree in library science and a master’s degree in educational multimedia communication. She worked as teacher in basic and secondary schools between 1980 and 1995. In 1997 she joined the staff of the School Libraries Network Programme in Portugal as school librarian adviser and regional coordinator. She is coauthor of several documents published by the SLNP. She is responsible for monitoring of the SLNP cooperation project in Mozambique and Timor-Leste. She has also been a trainer in the area of libraries. Her main professional topics are reading, media and information literacy. Contact email: elsa. [email protected]. Audrey P. Church, PhD, has worked as Associate Professor and Coordinator of the School Librarianship programme at Longwood University in Farmville, Virginia, USA, since 2000. Her main research interests are principals’ perceptions of school librarians, performance-based evaluations of school librarians, and the standards/accreditation process. Paula Correia has an advanced degree and a master’s degree in library science. She has worked as teacher in secondary schools between 1994 and 2008. In 2009 she joined the staff of the School Libraries Network Programme in Portugal as school librarian adviser and regional coordinator. She is co-author of several documents published by the SLNP. She has also been a trainer in the area of libraries. Her main professional topic focuses on the transformative role of school libraries in 21st-century schools. Contact email: [email protected]. Librarian Àlex Cosials teaches at the Library and Information Sciences Faculty (University of Barcelona), where he is involved in the Master of
School Libraries and Reading Promotion. He is also the coordinator of reading programmes of the Jaume Bofill Foundation and an adviser to the Department of Education of the Generalitat de
Catalunya. Contact email: [email protected]. Gail K. Dickinson, PhD, has worked as Professor and Associate Dean of Graduate Studies for the Darden College of Education at Old Dominion University in Norfolk, Virginia, USA, since 2004. Her main research/professional topic is accreditation and standards implementation. Ray Doiron, PhD, is Professor Emeritus at the University of Prince Edward Island. He has taught in teacher education programmes focused in early literacy, as well as graduate programmes in school librarianship. His research interests include the role of play in early child development, early literacy, digital technologies, school librarianship and the role libraries play in reading promotion, supporting literacy and building a culture for literacy. He has worked to support reading promotion through community libraries in Ethiopia as well as a programme evaluator, workshop leader and mentor for CODE-Ethiopia. He has co-authored a new book with Marlene Asselin entitled Linking Literacy and Libraries in Global Communities (Farnham: Ashgate, 2013) that focuses on the emerging role of libraries as community partners in global literacy development initiatives. Martine Ernoult was President of the FADBEN from 2010 to 2013. An experienced teacher librarian, she is involved at an international level through IFLA congresses. In 2014, she gave a presentation and paper at the School Libraries section of the IFLA congress in Lyon about “The role of the French professeur documentaliste in teaching media and information”.



Contributors 

 227

Professor Lesley Farmer coordinates the Librarianship programme at California State University Long Beach. She earned her MLS at UNC Chapel Hill and her doctorate at Temple University. Dr Farmer has worked in school, public, special and academic libraries. She serves as IASL Library Education Specal Interest Group chair and as IFLA School Libraries Section blogger. She won ALA’s Phi Beta Mu Award for library education. A frequent presenter and writer for the profession, Dr Farmer’s research interests include digital citizenship, information literacy, assessment, collaboration, and educational technology. Karen W. Gavigan is an Associate Professor in the School of Library and Information Science at the University of South Carolina in Columbia. Her areas of research include the use of graphic novels in schools, and school library issues. She is Chair of the IASL/IFLA School Libraries Joint Committee. Contact email: [email protected]. French teacher­librarian since 2011, Valérie Glass currently works at a high school in Saint Denis. After studying library and information science in France, she had the opportunity to spend one year in Canada where she learned a lot about Canadian libraries and practices. She also had the opportunity to work abroad and to intern at the French Institute of Valencia (Spain) and at the Université du Québec en Outaouais, experiences which gave her the taste to work in international environment. She committed to the FADBEN in 2011. Marilyn Hand is the English Co-ordinator at Perth College Junior School and also the Literacy Support teacher from Preparatory to Year Four. Marilyn did her teacher training in New Zealand and worked there in state schools for eight years before moving to Western Australia. She worked in state schools in Perth including three years at the Carlisle Language Centre before joining the independent school system. Marilyn has a wealth of knowledge about literacy attainment and has developed an English Scope and Sequence across all year levels for Perth College Junior School, which is assisting the teachers in delivering a vibrant and engaging programme. Contact email: [email protected]. Sofia Hög is a school librarian at Mediapoolen, a mediacentre in the West of Sweden. She has many years’ experience of school librarianship and has worked in different kinds of schools, representing all ages. Sofia is a member of the school library expert group within the trade union DIK. Carol Koechlin is an experienced educator who continues to contribute to the field of information literacy and school librarianship writing books, articles for professional journals, facilitating on-line courses, and presenting workshops in Canada and internationally. Her current work is helping schools teach questioning skills and design “high think” inquiry and projects that ignite student interest and utilize collaborative learning environments. Working with Dr David Loertscher and Sandi Zwaan, she has developed foundations for the transformation of school libraries and computer labs into a Learning Commons. Contact email: koechlin@sympatico. ca Twitter: infosmarts; Website: http://www.schoollearningcommons.info/; ScoopIt: School Library Learning Commons. Jessica Kohout has a MLIS and SLIS from the School of Library and Information Science at the University of South Carolina. She opened up the Learning Commons at Meadow Glen Middle,

228 

 Contributors

Lexington, SC, USA, two years ago and has also worked as an elementary-school librarian. Contact email: [email protected]. Dr Johan Koren attended Oslo Teacher’s College in 1971–1975 and was an elementary teacher in Oslo and in Rypefjord near Hammerfest, Norway. He became a librarian in 1986 with a master’s degree from the University of Michigan-Ann Arbor, later receiving a PhD from the same institution in 1992. Dr Koren returned to Norway from 1993 to 1999, serving as associate director of the regional library in Mo I Rana, Nordland until 1997, and then teaching a programme in collection development for libraries, archives and museums at the Nesna University College. Dr Koren has been coordinator of the school library programme at Murray State University since 2003. Jenny Lindmark is a media educator at MediaCenter in the county of Västerbotten, in Northern Sweden. She formerly worked as a school librarian for many years at an elementary school in Umeå. Jenny is a member of the school library expert group within the trade union DIK. Alison Mackenzie is the Junior and Senior School Teacher Librarian at Perth College Anglican School for Girls in Perth, WA. Alison has worked in public schools in Scotland and both public and private schools in Perth, WA. She has a passion for all things research and all things literacy. Alison’s role across the whole school (K-12) gives her a unique overview of teaching and learning and also a unique opportunity to interact with students and staff across the learning areas. Contact email: [email protected]. Librarian Teresa Mañà, PhD, is professor at the Library and Information Sciences Faculty (University of Barcelona), where she is involved in the Information and Documentation Degree and the Master of
School Libraries and Reading Promotion. She has worked for 12 years in
school and public libraries. Teresa Mañà is one of the main researchers on school libraries in Spain, and the co-author of the study Las bibliotecas escolares en España: Dinámicas
2005–2011 (Madrid: Ministerio de Educación, Cultura y Deporte; Fundación Germán Sánchez Ruipérez, 2013). Contact email: [email protected]. Danielle Martinod is an experienced French teacher librarian and a well organized lead trainer, always looking for innovation to improve student learning and literacy. She is known for her enthusiasm, her sense of responsibility, her ability to work in teams, and her communication skills. Qualified in English and Italian languages, she has often worked in international environments, planning and promoting professional conferences, and intercultural encounters in Europe and world-wide. She has long been committed to the work of the FADBEN in highlighting the positive role of the teacher librarian within the French schools. Isabel Mendinhos has a master’s degree in Information Management and School Libraries. She has worked as teacher in basic schools between 1978 and 2005 and as a teacher librarian in Sintra, Portugal, since 2002. In 2009 she joined the staff of the the School Libraries Network Programme in Portugal as school librarian adviser and regional coordinator. She is co-author of several documents published by the SLNP. She has also been a trainer in the area of libraries. Her main professional topics are reading, media and information literacy. Contact email: isabel. [email protected].



Contributors 

 229

Rae-Anne Montague is Assistant Professor and School Library Media Program Coordinator at the University of Hawaiʻi at Mānoa. She has been involved in education for over two decades including work with school and community libraries, bilingual education, online education, and higher education in Canada. Dianne Oberg is Professor Emerita in teacher librarianship in the Faculty of Education at the University of Alberta in Edmonton, Canada. Her research has focused on school library education and the implementation and evaluation of school library programs. In 1995 Dianne became the first editor of the peer-reviewed international journal School Libraries Worldwide. She was an early adopter of online technology for graduate-level education, and information on Teacher Librarianship by Distance Learning at the University of Alberta has been widely disseminated, most recently in an IGI Global publication, Cases on Building Quality Distance Education Programs: Strategies in Experiences (Hershey, PA: IGI Global,2011). Dianne co-authored, with Jennifer Branch, the award-winning professional document, Focus on Inquiry: A Teacher’s Guide to Implementing Inquiry-Based Learning (2004) and co-edited, with Luisa Marquardt, IFLA Publication 148, Global Perspectives on School Libraries: Projects and Practices (Berlin: De Gruyter Saur, 2011). Margo Pickworth is currently the teacher librarian at Shore Preparatory School, North Sydney. She has been employed as a Teacher Librarian in a wide range of schools and holds a Masters in Teacher Librarianship and e-Learning. Her main interests are in the promotion of literacy in young students, supported by the innovative use of technology. As well as a teacher librarian role, she has a demonstrated commitment to developing high standards of teaching and learning by completing the Highly Accomplished level of teacher accreditation and mentoring staff through teacher certification process. Contact email: [email protected]. Florian Reynaud has been President of the FADBEN, the French national federation of professeurs documentalistes [teacher­librarians], since 2014. A teacher librarian in France since 2009, he works in a secondary school. He is completing a PhD in Modern and Contemporary History, working on the impact of scientific publications on practices. He is currently very interested in learning and teaching about information literacy, and, in particular, from a historical point of view, the evolution of publishing and access to information, as well as its critical reading. Barbara A. Schultz-Jones, PhD, has worked as an Associate Professor in the Department of Library and Information Sciences of the College of Education at the University of North Texas, Denton, Texas, USA, since 2007. She is an active member of IASL and was nominated by IASL to the School Libraries Section of IFLA in 2011. She served as the Secretary of the IFLA School Library Section from 2011–2013 and as Chair from 2013–2015. Her main research/professional topics are learning environments, social network analysis, and information behaviour in context. Bogumiła Staniów is Associate Professor of Information and Library Science at the University of Wrocław, Poland. She is interested in books for children and young adults, mainly non-fiction and translations. She published Z uśmiechem przez wszystkie granice. Recepcja wydawnicza przekładów polskiej książki dla dzieci i młodzieży w latach 1945–1989 [Smiling across All Boundaries: Reception of Translations of Polish Books for the Youngest Readers 1945–1989] (Wrocław: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Wrocławskiego, 2006) and Książka amerykańska dla dzieci i młodzieży w Polsce w latach 1944–1989. Produkcja i recepcja [American Books for

230 

 Contributors

Children and Teenagers in Poland in the Years 1944–1989: Production and Reception] (Wrocław: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Wrocławskiego, 2000). She has also published on school libraries and contemporary librarianship. Her latest book is Biblioteka szkolna dzisiaj [The School Library Today] (Warszawa: Wydawnictwo SBP, 2012). Her current research focuses on non-fiction books for children after the Second World War as a source of information and a tool of ideology. Contact email: [email protected]. Judith Sykes has served as a teacher librarian, school library specialist, principal and provincial school library manager, leading the Canadian province of Alberta’s Ministry of Education School Library Services Initiative 2008–2012. She has chaired associations, published and presented extensively including acting as co-chair/principal writer of Achieving Information Literacy (Ottawa: Canadian School Library Association; Association for Teacher Librarianship in Canada, 2003). Judith currently served as project coordinator/writer for the 2014 Leading Learning: Standards of Practice for School Library Learning Commons In Canada (Ottawa: Canadian Library Association, 2014). She has authored four books with Libraries Unlimited, most recently Conducting Action Research to Evaluate Your School Library (Santa Barbara, CA: Libraries Unlimited, 2013). Contact email: [email protected]. Jenny Uther is currently working as a teacher librarian and teacher of English at Monte Sant’Angelo Mercy College, a Catholic independent secondary girls’ school in Sydney, Australia. Jenny’s focus is on student literacy, supporting the curriculum through collection development, collaborative teaching and planning with college staff and the incorporation of ICT into library services. Jenny has mentored teachers undertaking certification and is also working with colleagues at Monte Sant’Angelo to develop a process of collaborative professional review. Contact email: juther@ monte.nsw.edu.au. Bo Westas is a researcher at the trade union DIK. He formerly taught cultural studies at Uppsala University, Sweden. Bo has been a member of IFLA’s Freedom of Access to Information and Freedom of Expression (FAIFE) committee.

Index Index Accreditation 122, 179, 181, 182, 183, 184, 188, 189, 190, 199, 209, 214, 219 Achieving Information Literacy 26, 27, 38, 230 Advocacy VI, XIII, 50, 109, 111, 181, 182, 184, 192, 200, 206, 207 American Association of School Librarians (AASL) 76, 106, 188, 199, 218, 219 American Library Association (ALA) 3, 198, 199, 219 Australia XIV, 5, 28, 122, 124, 127, 128, 129, 131, 166, 172, 174, 176, 230 Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership (AITSL) 123, 125, 131 Australian Library and Information Association (ALIA) 122, 131 Australian School Library Association (ASLA) 122, 128, 131 Bangkok, Thailand 7 Bernhard, Paulette 6, 7 Caldès de Montbui 3, 4, 5 California VII, XIV, 209, 210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 216, 218, 219, 227 Canada V, XIII, 6, 7, 12, 13, 14, 25, 26, 27, 28, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 83, 84, 166, 176, 227, 229, 230 Canadian Library Association (CLA) 25, 29, 31, 32, 34, 35 Cape Town, South Africa XV, 15 Catalonia V, XIII, 41, 43, 44, 45, 47, 48 Certification 122, 124, 127, 130, 209 Charrier-Ligonat, Colette 7 Collaboration 33, 71, 83, 84, 87, 88, 90, 91, 96, 100, 101, 126, 159, 164, 166 Community libraries 133, 138 Continuum VI, 166, 169 Curriculum VI, 68, 78, 107, 126, 147, 148, 155, 159, 166, 167, 175, 176, 184, 188, 190, 193, 195, 199, 200, 209 Curriculum development 155, 166, 190, 209 Ecological model 133 encoded archival description. see  EAD

Ethiopia XIV, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 225, 226 European Union’s Key Competences for Lifelong Learning 113 Evans, Gwyneth 4, 6, 7, 10 extraction, transformation, and loading. see  Semantic ETL Facilities 18, 31, 83, 84, 181, 208 FADBEN XIV, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 163, 164, 165, 226, 227, 228, 229 Ferroni, Beatriz 7 Focus on Inquiry 168, 170, 171, 229 France VI, XIV, 7, 12, 155, 156, 163, 225, 227, 229 Galler, Anne 6, 10 Hawaiʻi 190, 191, 192, 197, 201, 229 Helsinki, Finland 12 IFLA Governing Board 11, 13, 15 IFLA School Libraries Section XI, 3, 4, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 26, 227 IFLA/UNESCO Public Library Manifesto 3, 4, 6, 10 IFLA School Library Guidelines XI, XIII, 11, 13, 15, 20, 21, 22, 39, 48, 61, 75, 77, 84, 92, 106, 120, 132, 145, 163, 165, 188, 200 IFLA/UNESCO School Library Guidelines XI, XIII, 3, 4, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 21, 22, 41, 45, 51, 62, 69, 75, 79, 201 IFLA/UNESCO School Library Manifesto VII, XI, XIII, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, 20, 22, 39, 45, 51, 61, 113, 192, 200, 221 Impact of standards 50, 93 Implementation of standards 47, 61, 94, 96, 98, 105, 133, 188 Information literacy 95, 102, 111, 112, 116, 155, 160, 166, 196, 210 Inquiry 18, 31, 115, 121, 166, 170, 193, 200, 229

232 

 Index

International Association of School Librarianship (IASL) XI, XIV, 3, 4, 11, 12, 26 International Federation of Library Associations. see  IFLA Kjekstad, Torny 7 Kuhlthau, Carol Collier 115, 121 Leading Learning 25, 30, 31, 32, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 230 Learning commons 25, 85, 87, 88, 89 Learning standards 155 Learning with the School Library 93, 94, 95, 96, 98, 100, 103, 105, 106 Library media specialists 86 Limberg, Louise 120, 121 Literacy standards 93 Loertscher, David 27, 40, 84, 86, 92 Lundvall, Randi 4, 12 Lyon, France 13, 14, 20, 77, 120, 145 Maastricht, Netherlands XV, 15 Marzano, Robert 176 Moscow, Russia 13, 14 National Library of Canada 3, 4, 6, 8 National Library of Sweden 112 Norway V, XIII, 7, 8, 9, 12, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 74, 75, 76, 79, 112, 228 Note taking 166 Oberg, Dianne 7, 13, 14, 39, 121 Onal, Inci 7 online public access catalog. see  OPAC Oslo, Norway 13

Poland V, XIII, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 56, 57, 59, 60, 61, 229 Portugal VI, XIII, 93, 94, 226, 228 Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) 64 Puntedu Program 41, 43, 47 resource definition framework. see  RDF School library development 63 School library education 63, 122, 155, 179, 190, 209 Schultz-Jones, Barbara 14 Shimmon, Ross 7, 8 Singapore 13, 14 South Carolina VI, XIII, 83, 86, 88, 92, 227 Spain V, XIII, 4, 5, 10, 41, 42, 43, 47, 49, 225, 227, 228 Student assessment 93, 166 Sweden VI, XIV, 12, 65, 74, 111, 114, 119, 225, 227, 228 Teacher education 122 Together for Learning 28, 39, 84, 92 Treasure Mountain Canada 27, 28, 39 United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) 5 United States of America 83, 179, 190, 209 University in Agder 63, 64, 66, 70, 72, 76 Western Australia VI, XIV, 166, 227 Willars, Glenys 9, 10, 22, 62, 79