1. PRESENTED BY THE SCHOOL LIBRARIANS ROCK GROUP JENNIFER AMATO-MINTON KAITLIN BRYANT TRACY PAPINCHOCK CLAIRE RICCI State Summary Presentation

2. States To Be Analyzed Minnesota North Carolina Ohio Pennsylvania

3. Data Collection Instruments Used Minnesota Online survey 62 questions Qualitative & Quantitative Questions 7 critical questions: ◦ The seven questions dealt with topics ranging from the number of staff to the budget, to the average size and copyright date of the collection

4. Data Collection Instruments Used North Carolina  Questionnaires collecting quantitative data in eight areas of NC media programs, including:  Staff activities  Service hours  Library Usage  Technology  Internet access  Operating expenditures  Management  School demographics

5. Data Collection Instruments Used Ohio  Web-survey with quantitative and qualitative questions regarding seven Constructs of Help:  Block 1 – Finding Information;  Block 2 – Using Information;  Block 3 – Knowledge Building;  Block 4 – Computers;  Block 5 – General Reading Interests;  Block 6 – Independent Learning;  Block 7 – Academic Achievement.

6. Data Collection Instruments Used Pennsylvania  Questionnaire collected respondent data including:  Staff  Hours  Paid staff activities  Use of services  Technology  Resources  Budget/capital outlay  Information management

7. Type Collections Responding Minnesota A total of 974 school library media centers responded to the survey 861 answered the survey completely 113 provided partial answers 390 schools did not respond 127 districts had a 100% response rate 41 small districts had no responses total response rate = 71%

8. Type Collections Responding North Carolina  The questionnaires were randomly sent to 994 out of 2,138 school libraries of all levels, in two rounds.  First round of 494 surveys yielded 113 responses, the second round of 500 yielded 103 responses  Overall 22% return rate  Of the responses, High and low-performing schools were identified by using standardized test scores

9. Type Collections Responding Ohio  Respondents were from 39 schools deemed with having effective school library programs (credentialed SLMSs committed to effective information literacy instruction and professional practices)  13,123 students in grades 3-12  879 faculty members

10. Type Collections Responding Pennsylvania Demographic data obtained at school or neighborhood level Administered to public schools only From a pool of 2,234 public schools serving grades 5, 8 and/or 11 a sample of 500 school libraries yielded an 87% participation rate (435 schools) Each grade level treated distinctly

11. Results Minnesota Staffing and spending in school library media centers make a difference in student reading scores. 93% of Minnesota Five Star Schools in Reading and Math have a media specialist at least some hours per week. Minnesota School Library Media Program spending for books has decreased significantly since 2002. Minnesota School Library Media Programs have collections that are not current and are seriously out-of-date in several subject areas.

12. Results North Carolina Consistent with similar findings in Alaska, Iowa, Colorado, Pennsylvania and Texas Scores on standardized reading and English tests in the schools included in this study tended to increase when libraries in the schools:  Were staffed more hours during the school week  Were open more hours during the school week  Had newer books  Spent more money per 100 students on books and other print materials like  magazines and newspapers  Spent more money per 100 students on electronic access to information (e.g., online database searching, Internet access)  Were more likely to subscribe to online periodical services  Were more likely to subscribe to CD ROM services (Burgin and Bracy, 2003, p.51) Burgin, R. and Bracy, P. (2003). An essential connection: how quality school library media programs improve student achievement in North Carolina.

13. Ohio Results BLOCKMean SMean FRanking 1. Finding Info.2.53543.210S (1) F (2) 2. Getting Info.2.25082.7420S (3) F (3) 3. Knowledge Building2.07012.5080S (4) F (6) 4. Computers2.52933.3081S (2) F (1) 5. Gen. Reading Interests1.90692.6553S (6) F (4) 6. Independent Learning1.77232.3119S (7) F (7) 7. Academic Achievement1.96562.5283S (5) F (5)

14. Results Ohio  Todd and Kulthau (2004) found that “13,050 students (99.44% of the sample) indicated that the school library and its services, including the roles of school librarians, have helped them in some way, regardless of how much, with their learning in and out of school as it relates to the 48 statements.”  Effective School Library Programs are:  Dynamic agents of learning  Provide purposeful instruction  Have credentialed SLMSs who collaborate in order to maximize learning opportunities and incorporate information literacy instruction

15. Results Pennsylvania Reading tests scores increased 4% - 8% where the school librarian spends time on instructional activities Test scores improved over time when SLMS spent more time  teaching collaboratively with classroom teachers  taught information literacy  taught teachers in in-service classes  worked on curriculum and standards committees  managed technology that supported information tools

16. Results Pennsylvania Well-developed school library programs improve student success via:  access to databases and Internet  information resources  integration of information literacy with the curriculum

17. Results Pennsylvania Results not diluted by school differences such as: school expenditures per pupil  teacher characteristics (education, experience, salaries)  teacher/pupil ratio  student characteristics (poverty, race/ethnicity)  community differences, adult educational attainment, families in poverty, racial/ethnic demographics. References Curry Lance, K., Rodney, M.J., & Hamilton-Pennell, C. (2000.) Measuring Up to Standards: The Role of Library Information Programs & Information Literacy in Pennsylvania Schools. Pennsylvania Department of Education.