The SLJ Spending Survey

Much has changed since the last SLJ spending survey was conducted in 2002—and much of it for the better. For starters, most local budgets have remained steady over the last three years. However, funds for library resources and services dipped as a result of federal and state policies and mandates. Nevertheless, a quarter of those who responded to our survey received federal funds—which made up a fifth to a quarter of their total budgets. It would seem that attempts to get federal funding are well worth the effort.

Also in this article: Tables for The SLJ Spending Survey  Staff stayed, volunteers left  Book budgets up, federal funds fall  Collections grow but still need updating  Technology assumed center stage  Database content expands  Reading motivation outscores reading programs  Planning time grew  LMSs played leading roles

In response to local and national needs, LMSs addressed literacy issues, and advocated for strong library media programs that help students achieve. Librarians also assumed more leadership roles, particularly in the realm of professional development. What needs improvement? Topping the list is better publicizing of the library media program and more formal communication with principals. LMSs also need to become more aware of central budgets and seek out opportunities for external funding.

This survey, based on data collected in 2005, received responses from 529 school libraries: 22% from the Northeast, 33% from the South, 29% from the North Central, and 16% from the West. This distribution mirrors the relative number of school libraries regionally, according to the National Center for Education Statistics data (www.nces.gov). Of the total responses, 93% were from public schools and the rest from private. Of those who answered the survey, 36% were high school librarians, 32% were middle or junior high school librarians, 25% were elementary school librarians, and 7% worked in other schools, such as K–8 or K–12 combinations. For more on our methodology, visit www.slj.com/spending2006. All comparisons refer to 2002 data.

Library staffing has held steady, with the median number of LMSs and support staff holding at one each, although elementary support staff was likely to consist of a half-time person rather than a full-time one (Table 1). A full-time LMS headed the library media program in 93% of the sites, but 48% had no full-time support staff members. At the district level, 32% had a full-time library media coordinator or director, and another 13% had a part-time person. About a quarter of the head LMSs were certified in librarianship alone, another two-thirds in both library and subject certification, and 10% had only subject certification or were not certified.

Job security sometimes still depended on budget allocations and state mandates. “Although I am full time this year, because of budget cuts, I will only be in the library two days a week next year,” reported one participant. “My administrators and school board are not happy to do this… but the state of Ohio is not a strong advocate of school libraries. Nothing in the state law requires libraries in any school, so the board had to cut back on my services or release teachers.”

As for the respondents’ length of service in the profession, elementary school librarians gained only two years, while those in “other schools” (combinations such as K–8 and K–12) jumped from 12 years in 2002 to 21 years in 2005. Salaries also increased, with elementary school LMSs earning $48,000 (up from $43,000), and “other” LMSs earning $42,500 (up from $37,750). Middle/junior high LMSs gained $2,000 to earn $50,000; senior high LMSs gained $2,415 in the same period to earn $50,000. “The only reason my salary looks acceptable is because I am a National Board Certified educator,” explained one participant.

Volunteer staffing, particularly student aides, dropped perceptibly, from a median of three years in senior high schools in our 2002 survey to one year in 2005. Adult volunteers followed traditional patterns: a median of two years in elementary schools to less than one year elsewhere. However, the mean number of adult volunteers in middle/junior highs decreased from almost nine years in 2002 to three years in 2005, and the senior high mean declined from 11 years in 2002 to just one year in 2005. The number of hours per volunteer was not reported, so each volunteer could have spent more time working in the library.

Without adequate funding, library media programs face enormous obstacles, particularly in a digital information world. Of the 93% of respondents who provided information about their expenditures for library resources, 97% reported receiving some local funding, with a median figure of $11,000 (Table 2). A few received much higher budgets because of circumstances such as new constructions or school-level restructuring. Surprisingly, while only a quarter of the LMCs received federal funding, 55% received gift funds. On the other hand, the median amount of federal funding was almost three times more than the gifts. Considering the time it takes to write grants or to do fund-raising, it would appear that locating federal funding would be a most cost-effective approach for many LMSs.

The good news is that library book expenditures kept up with the rising price of books (Tables 3 and 4). However, spending for audiovisual materials, computer software, CD-ROMs, and Web-based subscriptions remained flat. But not all book purchases necessarily go to the library. As one respondent said, “Monies allocated for libraries do not have to go into a central location anymore. Monies under 388 [a source of funding] can be used for classroom libraries.” Expenditures for print periodicals did not keep up with increasing costs; however, this figure does not take into account the transition to online databases.

The most telling story about expenditures was expressed in terms of grade levels, reflecting LMC collection patterns. TME (Total Materials Expenditures) is reported at the bottom of each column in Table 5 and Table 6 for the purposes of comparison. TME excludes salaries, but reflects all expenditures for resources, as well as AV equipment, computer hardware, online resources, rentals, leases, supplies, and maintenance.

As anticipated, expenditures were lowest for elementary school LMCs. A statistically significant correlation existed between the number of full-time LMSs and the total local expenditures at middle/junior high and senior high levels. A statistically significant correlation also existed between district size and high school LMC expenditures. While there was no statistically significant difference in TME among regions, the average student enrollment did vary significantly. Consequently, TME per pupil was sometimes affected. “The funds from the state are not distributed the same way in all systems,” wrote one respondent. “Our system distributes the funds based on the number of teachers.”

Most LMSs would agree that local funds were insufficient to maintain their programs. Fortunately, because LMCs shared several services, such as telecommunications, with the rest of the school, these items were sometimes absorbed by other budgets (Table 7). A total of 57% of LMCs received additional resources from sources outside their own budgets.

While the number of LMCs receiving prepaid telecommunications services has declined slightly since 2002, access to prepaid Web-based products has grown slightly. Added funds for technical processing services and equipment maintenance also saw a 5% and 8% increase, respectively, most likely due to centralized services. The most significant change was the market-level introduction of video-streaming services; 30% of LMCs received that service from funds outside their LMC budgets. It might be useful for LMSs to examine these outside sources more closely to determine their impact on local planning and the delivery of services.

Collections have grown approximately 10% across grade levels, with a corresponding 14% increase in number of books per pupil (Table 6). However, the number of books per pupil for high school LMCs decreased about 13% even though the median number of volumes added in 2005 was 100 more than the amount reported in 2002.

Audiovisual collections continued to grow, particularly for videos. Elementary school video collections grew 40%, middle/junior high video collections increased 41%, and high school collections expanded by 31%. The number of videos and DVDs per pupil remained, on the whole, about one for every two pupils. Software and audiotape/CD collections showed slow growth, although high school collections were four times larger than in 2002. With increased Internet access and more Web-based products, CD-ROM collections were likewise small.

Collections are dynamic, and it is hard to keep them current. About 23% of respondents thought that less than 11% of their collection was out of date. Almost half (49%) thought that between 11% and 30% of their collection needed updating, and another 28% reported that more than 31% of their collection was out of date. Only in the West was there a significant correlation between grade level and outdated materials, with high school collections rated the oldest.

By 2005, technology resources and services were a mainstay in schools and LMCs. All but 1% of LMCs had a computerized circulation system, and 92% had an OPAC, up from 82% (Table 8). In 2005 the median number of LMC computers per 100 students was 2.5, and the number of LMC computers with access to the library OPAC per 100 students was 1.5. It should be noted that many schools provided OPAC access from classrooms, computer labs, and remotely.

The percentage of schools with home Web pages almost doubled to 93% and library Web pages more than doubled, from 27% to 60%. While an acceptable-use policy was already the norm (98% in 2005), federal and state legislation concerning access to Internet sites resulted in a large increase in LMCs using filtering software, from 69% to 98%. Half of LMCs had cable television, but only a quarter had broadcast TV. Closed-circuit TV remained available to about a third of LMCs.

Distance education is highly touted, but LMSs with that service remained steady at 12%, with most using video conferencing. About two-thirds were members of a resource-sharing network (a slight increase), with 60% of those networks being linked electronically, compared with half in 2002. Although the condition and age of LMC computers were not addressed in this survey, the need for maintenance was clear. As one respondent explained, “If it wasn’t for… a good working relationship with our school-based technology coordinator, my computers would be ancient.”

In a world where some people think that everything on the Internet is free, LMSs still have to persuade decision makers to invest in subscription databases. Table 9 shows that these online resources were increasingly embraced by larger numbers of LMCs. The two main databases available in LMCs were from EBSCO and ProQuest, with Gale a close third.

We asked about newer products, and a majority of LMCs reported subscribing to a video-streaming service, others to literacy criticism databases, statewide/regional library network catalogs, the Web index WebFeet, and online reference Q&A services. Surprisingly, there was a slight decline in access to statewide or regional library online periodical databases.

Technology played a central role for both administrative and instructional purposes (Table 10). As one would expect, 94% or greater of the respondents used computers to manage their collections (circulation, cataloging, inventory, and overdues) as well as handle acquisitions (89%), produce promotional materials (83%), and support teachers (82%). Less popular computer-supported activities were budgeting (73%), managing interlibrary loan (54%), and reading programs (37%). Acquisitions, LMC promotion/PR, and teacher support were conducted with the use of LMC computers by 80% of responding LMSs, and the integrated library system lived up to its name (94% and above). LMC computers used for teacher support increased 13%, technology-linked budgeting increased 14%, and the use of LMC computers for promotion/PR rose 17%.

LMSs also modeled the use of computers in teaching and learning activities. Information and computer skills instruction went hand in hand, as reported by 87% of those in elementary school grades (Table 10). Web-based searching and reference was “neck to neck” with reading programs/book selection at 83%. More than three-quarters of survey respondents used presentation tools, although less than half used data projectors or SMART boards. WebQuests continued to be a popular learning tool, employed by 72% of the respondents.

One measure of how times have changed was reflected in format choice: more instruction incorporated streaming video than videos or DVDs. There was also limited use of video conferencing and podcasting—7% and 2%, respectively. For the first time, we surveyed the use of assistive technology: 15% of those in elementary school grades reported using it, as compared to 30% in middle/junior high grades, and 21% in senior high grades. With the overall use of assistive technology at just over 20%, it’s imperative that LMSs consider increasing these percentages.

Computer use varied just a few percentage points among grade levels, with increased use correlating with higher grade levels. Reading programs, photo editing, and video and DVD viewing decreased in senior high LMCs, while activities like accessing e-books and journals, downloading files, and dealing with student e-mail accounts became more frequent.

With the advent of the No Child Left Behind Act, some schools and library programs have adopted reading motivation programs or techniques (Table 11). The four most popular reading activities in the LMC were: providing comics or graphic novels (51%), booktalking (45%), storytelling or reading aloud (28%), and author visits (22%). Not surprisingly, storytelling occurred mainly in the elementary school grades, and graphic novels appeared in junior and senior high collections; author visits and booktalks declined as the grade level increased.

In contrast, sustained silent reading (SSR) and peer tutoring were largely the purview of classroom teachers (43% and 49%, respectively), although 16% of LMSs participated in SSR. Both classroom teachers and LMSs used read-alouds (24%) and booktalks (21%), although mostly in elementary schools. Only 21% of schools offered any type of family literacy program, and fewer than 15% provided intergenerational reading programs.

Electronic reading programs were used by almost half of the respondents, up from a third. About 18% of library staff managed the computers for those programs in 2005 (compared to 7% in 2002), and another 14% jointly managed them with teachers (down from 16%). About half of the LMSs reported no involvement with electronic reading programs.

In terms of budgeting for electronic reading programs, the impact was slightly positive: 20% of library budgets increased in order to purchase more titles, and 5% decreased. (In 2002, by comparison, 22% of library budgets increased and 14% decreased, indicating a greater overall impact on library budgets.) Interestingly, 84% of libraries in 2002 reported that some part of their budget was spent specifically on electronic reading program materials, while in 2005 that number dropped to 68%. One respondent explained his spending decisions this way: “I order whatever I think the students will enjoy. But if it has an Accelerated Reader quiz, that’s a definite bonus, since my kids are more likely to check it out.”

LMSs spent about five hours a week planning instruction, up about an hour (Table 12). Approximately 100 minutes in planning was done formally and 180 minutes informally, with a gain of about 50 minutes in formal instruction. Informal communication continued to occur in hallways, during lunch hour and staff activities, and in 2005, by way of e-mail.

Three-quarters of the respondents stated that they planned curricular content with classroom teachers. However, only about a third planned with 31% or more of the classroom teachers at some time during the school year. The percentage of collaborating teachers appeared to decrease as the grade level increased. About 21% of elementary school LMSs planned with more than 70% of classroom teachers, as opposed to 12% of middle/junior high LMSs and 4% of high school LMSs.

Scheduling also effects planning time. About 58% of schools offered flexible scheduling, and another quarter used a combination of flexible and fixed schedules. In elementary schools, almost half had fixed schedules, and another third used a combination schedule. In contrast, two-thirds of middle/junior highs had flexible scheduling and another quarter used a combination of both approaches. Almost 90% of high schools had flexible scheduling.

One of the American Association of School Librarians’ main goals is to increase advocacy—and based on the survey responses, it seems to be happening. About 85% of respondents said they advocated for library media program goals and objectives. Recognizing the significant role of the principal, 92% regularly communicated informally with their principal, although only 18% had formal meetings. A little over half of the LMSs distributed an annual report, only a quarter of them distributed a monthly newsletter, and about 22% had a library media advisory committee.

Three-quarters of responding LMSs participated in professional development activities, and two-thirds organized or taught in-service workshops for staff. A surprising 42% served as a mentor for new teachers or other LMSs. Furthermore, 60% of LMSs belonged to school leadership teams, and 60% also served on educational committees at the local, district, or state level.

Policies can signal attention, and a total of 84% of the respondents reported that they had a school board-approved policy for selecting and reevaluating library media resources, 77% had a school board-approved copyright or fair-use policy, and 92% had adopted an acceptable-use policy for student Internet use.

About half maintained ongoing communication with public libraries (Table 13). Approximately 60% supported summer reading club activities (almost 90% of elementary schools); one-third exchanged newsletters with public libraries; a quarter facilitated public library visits (40% of elementary schools); a quarter regularly informed the public library about school assignments; and 19% shared OPAC or online periodical databases. Some of the joint programs included storytelling, librarian and author visits, Battle of the Books, poetry slams, teen reading groups, and workshops for the college-bound.

One important finding was the increase in all activities since the 2002 report, as seen in Table 13. LMCs seemed more committed to supporting joint school-public library activities and were increasingly engaged in all forms of communication.