Spending Survey—How Do You Measure Up?

Dr. Marilyn L. Miller & Dr. Marilyn L. Shontz -- School Library Journal, 10/1/1999

Marilyn L. Miller is pscanrofessor emeritus and former chair of the Department of
Library and Information Studies at the University of North Carolina in Greensboro. Marilyn L. Shontz is associate professor in the library education program at Rowan University in Glassboro, NJ.

Feeling flush? A cursory look at the findings from the latest SLJ survey of school library expenditures for FY 1997-1998 suggests you should be. The data show that the average school library budget is up $1,000 from two years ago, and that media specialists are enjoying higher salaries than ever- increases of as much as $4,000 a year for those working at the junior high/middle school level.

The salary boost is a genuine gain, but that rosy budget figure is somewhat misleading. Even with a $1,000 increase there is still a net loss in buying power. That additional grand barely gets libraries back to where they were four years ago, when the average book cost nine percent less.

In addition to these statistics, here are the other major findings:

• Nine percent of library media specialists (LMSs) are not certified in library media, and 10 percent work only part time.
• Seventy-five percent of library media centers (LMCs) have access to the Web, up from 49 percent two years ago.
• Eighty-one percent of LMCs have acceptable-use policies, and 41 percent use an Internet filter.
• Time for planning with teachers-both formal and informal sessions-has dwindled by an average of percent since 1993-1994.

The purpose of this series, first begun in l983, is to provide you, our readers, with an up-to-date account and longitudinal view of national trends in school library media spending so that you can compare local data with national norms. (For more on how the survey is conducted, see "Behind the Data" below). In addition, each biannual survey collects new data that focuses on one or more previously unstudied aspect of our profession. This time we:

• offer an expanded look at
  computer-use policies and practice  (Table 7);
• identify access to basic electronic resources (Table 8);
• examine the preparation and certification of LMC staff (Table 10);
• look closely at LMS-teacher planning in the elementary school (Table 11);
• explore communication between LMSs and teachers (Table 13); and
• compare LMC services among grade levels (Table 14).

Thanks to a small increase in local funding, median allocations are back up to $9,500, right where they were in l993-1994 (Table 1).

Table 1 presents mean and median expenditures for all resources from most funding sources, including local school budgets, the federal government, gifts, and fundraising.  It does not include funds allocated through district media centers, regional consortiums, or other leasing or granting agencies. "Local" defines money allocated by local school boards, states, and/or counties that fund all or part of local school expenses and are administered through a local education agency (LEA).

Though fewer schools report receiving federal funds, the size of the median grant is up $600 since 1994. These two increases bring the average total expenditure up $440 over 1993-1994.

Comparisons of mean and median expenditures from all sources in 1997-l998 show that some schools are on average $7,115 above the median of $12,185. Pursuing this further, we discovered that the range of local expenditures is vast, with one school spending $330, while another spent $632,000. While this latter figure undoubtedly reflects the opening of a new library, significant differences in expenditures between richer and poorer schools are still cause for concern.

Sixty-six percent of the respondents reported receiving funds from gifts and fundraising. Although this number has increased slightly since 1993-l994, their efforts yielded small rewards: an average of $1,000 per school. The means reported in this category indicate some of the respondents are more successful than others, with an average of $3,701. The major sources of gift and fundraising dollars for school libraries were as follows: 12 percent reported receipts from book fairs; eight percent received contributions from parent groups; six percent reported funds from petty cash, fines, and lost-book revenue; and six percent received support from business partnerships.

Tables 2-3 show expenditures for individual schools, while Tables 4-5 reflect per pupil spending.

Local funds for books are $1,000 higher, an increase of 62 cents per pupil over 1995-l996 (Table 5). Table 4 shows that per pupil expenditures for other resources are not improving. Since 1990 spending for AV materials have actually declined, while expenditures for periodicals, software, and CD-ROMs have been stagnant or shown only small gains (Table 5). Overall, book budgets show promise, but despite an initial influx of technology money earlier in the decade, spending on media and software is now weak, which is ironic given the strong economy and community interest in education and technology.

In Table 6, the mixed-level schools categorized under " Other" had the highest print expenditures and the largest per pupil Total Materials Expenditures (TME). The median figures also show that compared to schools at other levels, high schools in 1997-1998 added fewer volumes and had fewer books per pupil; on the other hand, high schools purchased more videos per pupil than other schools. Those collection statistics are also mirrored in the spending categories, which indicate that high schools spend less on average for books but more for periodicals, microforms, CD-ROMs, and AV
materials than other schools.

Tables 7-8

Technology

Table 7 reports the growth in acquisition and use of technology. The number of LMCs receiving extra funding-such as gifts, grants, district monies, or federal or special state funds-for technology is up: 46 percent receive extra funding for computer software; 41 percent receive more for telecommunications, which includes e-mail and online services; 30 percent are allocated additional money for resource sharing, such as computer time, postage, and telephone and copying expenses; and 22 percent receive special funding for Web subscriptions and access, a new category for this survey.

In 1995-l996, only half of the schools reported having access to the Internet. In 1997-l998, that number jumped to 74 percent, and of those LMCs that are online, 61 percent reported that the school or LMC has its own home page. We asked media specialists to identify who is responsible for managing their school and LMC home pages, and here's what they reported:

• LMC staff: 14 percent;
• school technology staff: 52 percent;
• district level staff: 19 percent;
• others (students, parents, teachers, or volunteers): 15 percent.

Cable TV remains the most popular television option, with 67 percent of LMCs tuning in. Fifty-eight percent of media specialists continue to participate in resource-sharing networks, of which 41 percent report being linked electronically. An impressive 81 percent of LMSs report having an acceptable-use policy, and 41 percent say their libraries use software to filter the Internet. Table 8 identifies which electronic resources are used in LMCs and elsewhere in schools. In l998, EBSCOhost, state library databases, SIRS, and electronic reading programs, such as Accelerated Reader and Electronic Bookshelf (which is now called Scholastic Reading Counts!), were available in more than a quarter of the reporting LMCs.

Tables 9-10

Human Resources

Personnel levels in LMCs have remained roughly the same since 1993-1994. On average, LMCs are still staffed by one library media specialist, and the average secondary school still enjoys full-time, paid support staff. Volunteers, including both adult and student assistants, continue to fluctuate in number, and, according to Table 9, are not a major source of assistance. Salaries took a sizable leap and are the most encouraging aspect of the staffing data. Salaries increased across all levels: $2,000 for elementary schools, $4,000 for junior high/middle schools, $3,000 for high schools, and more than $3,500 for those in combined-level schools.

Table 10 reports certification areas of LMSs. Slight more than half (56 percent) of the respondents are certified both in school library media and a subject area. Thirty-five percent are certified only in school library media, and nine percent have no media certification. This finding raises interesting questions about the readiness of nearly one-half of the LMSs who are without the combination of library and teacher certification: Are they adequately prepared to manage a media center and fully collaborate with teachers?

We asked respondents who hold advanced graduate degrees to describe their academic preparation. Respondents reported degrees in:

• school library media only: 47 percent;
• education only: 14 percent;
• subject area only: 2 percent;
• school library media and education: 15 percent;
• school library media, education, and a subject area: 3 percent;
• education and subject area: 2 percent.

 

Tables 11-14

Programs and Services

An additional focus of the 1997-1998 survey is scheduling and LMS-teacher planning in elementary schools. Those with flexible scheduling report a slightly higher staffing level (Table 11). They also report spending more time planning with teachers and also planning with a higher percentage of teachers. Forty-five percent of the LMSs using flexible scheduling plan with the majority of teachers (more than 71 percent of teachers), compared to 29 percent of those with combined fixed/flexible schedules and only 13 percent of those with fixed schedules. The vision in Information Power: Building Partnerships for Learning (ALA, 1998) of the media specialist as teacher depends on LMSs developing and using a variety of strategies to plan instruction alongside classroom teachers. Table 12 indicates that we still have a long way to go before fulfilling that vision. In fact, the figures show a reverse trend. Over the past four years, the number of hours spent in formal and informal planning shows a persistent and disturbing decline at each grade level.

Table 13 describes and compares how LMSs communicate with teachers and principals. (The information on principals comes from the 1995- l996 data of LMC expenditures and resources.) The most consistent opportunity for LMSs to communicate with teachers and principals is the monthly teachers' meeting, where 44.6 percent of LMSs talk to teachers and 72.2 percent talk to principals. When it comes to communication, technology helps, as 43.4 percent report telephoning and 42.7 percent e-mail their colleagues. One in three LMSs creates an annual report for the principal, but only 12.7 percent share it with teachers.

In past reports, we have identified high-service LMCs as those in which 17 or more of 22 identified services are available to students and teachers. Those reports compared services according to the availability of technology and participation in site-based management.

Table 14 compares services among grade levels. Across grade levels, reference assistance and informal library instruction are part of the job for more than 90 percent of LMSs. The same grade-level consistency is revealed for integrating skills instruction into the curriculum, though only 61 percent report doing so. High school LMSs are more likely to provide staff development for teachers than their counterparts at other grade levels, and they are also more likely to help both teachers and students use off-campus resources. On the other hand, high school LMSs are less likely than their counterparts to provide reading, listening, and viewing guidance, and they are also less likely to help parents realize the importance of lifelong learning. Coordinating video production is the responsibility of only one in four LMSs, as is coordinating computer networks. Only a third of all respondents report coordinating in-school production of materials, such as overhead transparencies and posters.

One interesting discrepancy appears in Table 14 with regard to the curriculum-planning role of media specialists. Seventy-nine percent report collaborating with teachers, but only one-half report working with school curriculum committees. And only 58 percent report helping teachers develop and implement learning activities and evaluate outcomes.

Table 15

District-Level Leadership

In l987-1988, 40 percent of the respondents reported having access to a district-level coordinator of library media services. Ten years later that figure has dropped to 33 percent. During that same period, the percentage of LMSs reporting no district coordinator has risen from 46 to 54. The remaining participants report access to half-time district leadership. In comparing services between LMCs with and without that level of leadership, eight characteristics appear at statistically significant levels. Of these eight, six center around technology. Schools with district leadership have more funds available for the repair and maintenance of district computers and AV equipment, use more television, and are more likely to have an online catalog and a wide area network. They are, in other words, more likely to be high-tech schools.

A graduate student challenged us following the publication of our last survey. She indicated several places in the text where we had been free in commenting on the data, thus leaving ourselves open to criticism that we are not as objective as we should be. She is right; we aren't always.

We are emotionally as well as intellectually involved with the findings. This series has been a major part of our professional and academic lives. We exult when we find promising results. We lament when we learn how little some professionals have to work with. And we are cross when we see things slide or take too long to catch on. The rush to wire libraries juxtaposed with the slow emergence of LMS-teacher collaboration is a good example.

To keep a positive perspective, librarians need to be ever mindful of our history. Remember, there were libraries before there were educational institutions. We and our organized resources and programs are the bedrock of learning. Our 90 years of school library development, from Mary Kingsbury and the first high school library in the early years of this century to the hundreds of good programs available as we move into a new century, is a testament to leadership, perseverance, and professionalism. With the new edition of Information Power, we are ready to move into 00. And we hope we will still be asking questions and exulting and exhorting over the findings.

Behind the Data

Survey Population

This data represents the results of a questionnaire mailed in September 1997 to 1,500 LMCs. The respondents were selected by systematic random sampling from SLJ's school-based subscription list covering all 50 states.

After follow-up mailings to non-respondents, we received 537 completed questionnaires. Discarding those that were unusable (most often because of incomplete financial data), we were left with a 38.2 percent response rate, the smallest rate yet for this series. (Many of the unusable responses were from those who noted that 1997-1998 was their first year in service.) Of the total number of responses, 57 (or 9.9 percent) were from private schools.

Changes in the geographic and grade-level distribution of respondents were minor. As in previous years, the largest number of responses came from schools in the southern U.S. and from elementary schools. The "Other" category in Chart A refers to schools that bridge two or more categories, such as 7-12 and K-12 schools.

The most notable demographic change is in school size (Table 18). The number of schools serving 300-499 students has dropped from 26 percent in 1995-1996 to 21 percent last year, and the number of schools serving 700- 999 increased from 19 to 23 percent.

Methodology

Each response was checked for accuracy, and then coded and entered into a computer data file. Analysis was done using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS). Measures of central tendency (means and medians) were produced for all of the budget collection items listed in the survey. The statistical test Chi-square was used to determine statistical significance for the category variables in Table 18.

Both means and medians are reported wherever appropriate to give a more accurate description of the data. The mean allows for comparisons with other studies that have used this measure; however, the median indicates more accurately the expenditures reported by most LMCs.

Although the mean (or average) is the descriptive statistic most commonly used in studies of this type, analysis showed an upward skew because a few respondents reported spending extremely large amounts in some categories. With data distribution like this, the few large scores inflate the mean and make it a less desirable measure.

To report only the mean instances where data are skewed would be misleading. For example: in 1997-1998, there was a wide range between the minimum of $25 spent by one school on AV materials and the maximum amount of $43,500 spent by another school. In this case the mean would be $2,746 and the median, $1,490. The latter is a more accurate reflection of the average expenditure.

For More Data

Previous "Expenditures for Resources in School Library Media Centers" have been published in the following issues of SLJ: October 1993, May 1985, June/July 1987, June 1989, August 1991, October 1993, October 1995, and October 1997. SLJ has also published specialized technology reports based on the data in April 1994, October 1996, and October 1998, and a report on high-service LMCs in May 1998.