The role and nature of school library collections
Resourcing the curriculum has certainly extended my knowledge and understanding of the role and nature of school library collections. The complexities involved in developing balanced collections have overwhelmed me at times, as I’ve navigated key issues such as selection criteria, censorship, budgeting, evaluation and copyright, all situated in the context of an ever-changing and challenging information landscape. During module 1, when initially considering the definitions and differences of collection management and collection development, I was rather confused, as practitioner and academic discussion often use the terms synonymously (Corrall, 2018; Johnson, 2009). In Discussion Forum 1, I skirted the issue, quoted the QLD Department of Education, which didn’t differentiate between the two, and decided to travel down the collection development path. Here I found great emphasis on collaborative models which involve all stakeholders from the school community, to develop collections in the contemporary context (Kimmel, 2014; Keeling, 2019). While I managed to dodge the issue of differentiating between collection management and collection development temporarily, little did I realise that I’d have to return to this quagmire when planning for the second assessment.
During modules 2 and 3, discussions around patron-driven acquisitions (PDA), digital collections and budgeting addled my brain. In Discussion Forum 2.1, the article I shared helped me make sense of PDA, digital selection tools which support this, and the importance of giving school library users a voice (Strong & Galbraith, 2018). In exploring the specifics of budgeting, access and acquisition, I again felt disorientated by details of output versus input measures as tools for purchasing resources. In Discussion Forums 3.1 and 5.1, I discussed that for a comprehensive approach to acquiring data to inform budgeting decisions, qualitative as well as quantitative data, from use and user based and collection based methods, is necessary for curating a balanced collection (Johnson, 2014, p.302). This all finally synthesized during modules 5 and 6. I came to realise that a TL must be proactive in seeking increased funding for collections, which also means being armed with a pragmatic CDP.
In my Module 2.1 blog post (April 15, 2020) I considered responsibility for resource selection. From this research I gathered that yes, as “professional curators working within a school library context” (Kimball, 2020) it is indeed the role of the TL to select, analyse and protect quality resources and information for their school community. However, it is also the role of the TL to facilitate the challenge of cooperative resource selection, with all school library stakeholders (Keeling, 2019). Throughout the later modules it became clear that a TL must be equipped with up to date information on copyright laws, censorship and individuals’ rights to information and ideas, to have the knowledge base to facilitate this selection. Another key focus from this subject, drawn from the modules and both assessments, is that the role and nature of the school library collection must be focused on the needs of the users (Bishop, 2013, pp.21-25; Hughes-Hassell and Mancall, 2005, p. 35; Kimmel, 2014, pp. 27-29). These users should also, ideally, be included in the selection of the collection, through the continuous cycle of collection development.
As the second assessment loomed, I researched further and posted on my blog: What is the difference between a collection development policy and a collection management policy? (May 11, 2020), to help break down the semantics of collection development, management, policies and procedures. Corrall’s (2018) view that there are good reasons to differentiate between “developmental and managerial aspects of work with collections” (p.7) resonated with me, so I revisited her work. I came across Prytherch (2005, cited in Corrall, 2018) who presents collection development as a “strategic activity that is operationalized through collection management” (p.6). I reasoned, therefore, that management involves the procedures and operations, or the how, of collection acquisition. This fed into our final task, understanding the importance of a CDP as a strategic document.
The importance of a collection development policy (CDP) as a strategic document
Throughout this subject, I’ve regularly encountered references to a CDP for best school library practice (Agee, 2019, p.6; ALIA & VCTL, 2017, p.8; Johnson, 2009, p. 109). After completing the second assessment, it was also clear that an effective CDP is an important, strategic document as it formally and pragmatically “maintains a commitment to systematic collection building and development” (Shaw, 2018, p. 165). A CDP guides school library staff to identify and address current collection strengths and weaknesses, aids decision making processes and minimizes personal bias, which assists with strategic planning (Johnson, 2018, p.83; Shaw, 2018, p.166). CD policies are tactical, as their purposes are “to inform and protect”; they can improve a library’s ability to “compete for resources within a complex and competitive institutional… environment” (Johnson, 2018, p. 86). This is clearly an important function of the CDP, given the current situation of many school libraries being under resourced. In Discussion Forum 6.1, it became clear that many school libraries, mine included, didn’t have a CDP. Consequently, many Australian school communities may not be properly informed of their library’s short and long term goals, nor would school principals be aware of resource needs and legitimate funding requirements to support these needs. Shaw (2018) supports this notion, arguing that the CDP is used as an “advocate for the library… for administrative purposes… and for justification for funding” (p. 165). Indeed, without a CDP, school libraries are not protected against external pressures (Johnson, 2018, p.87).
How does a CDP assist in future proofing the collection?
Discussion Forum 6.1 also highlighted the inescapable context of COVID-19 and the need for digital curation. Many students in this forum spoke of their contexts which support Newsum’s (2016) argument that “collecting and promoting digital resources and technologies is not widespread practice” in school libraries (p.101). As O’Connell et al. (2015) predicted, Australian school libraries did not reach the projected balance of 50:50 physical to digital equilibrium by 2020 (p.194). As many schools quickly attempted to provide students with access to digital collections during remote learning, it became even more evident that school libraries have a vital role to play in providing this access to networked collections (ALIA & VCTL, 2017, pp56-57). As a result, I included Development of digital collections as an added section for the Parks High School CDP, to prioritise its importance, and to future proof the collection, as the information landscape and digital technologies continue to evolve. TLs can assist schools to succeed in 21st century learning by facilitating the selection, analysis and collection of educational databases, ebooks, collaborative online communication tools and open educational resources (Agee, 2019, p.7). The future is actually now, and it is clear that written policies and procedures are “critical to the efficient management of a school library program and collection” (Bishop, 2013, p. 37). Future proofing the collection is about having the flexibility and capacity to respond to challenges, and to the needs of the user community.
References
Agee, S. (2019). Curate a collection for all learners. Knowledge Quest, 48(2), 6-7.
Australian Library and Information Association (ALIA) Schools and Victorian Catholic Teacher Librarians (VCTL). (2017). A manual for developing policies and procedures in Australian school library resource centres (Revised edition). file:///E:/CSU/ETL503%20Resourcing%20the%20Curriculum/ALIA%20Schools%20policies%20and%20procedures%20manual_FINAL.pdf
Corrall, S. (2018). The concept of collection development in the digital world. In M. Fieldhouse & A. Marshall (Eds.), Collection development in the digital age (pp. 3-43). Cambridge University Press.
Hughes-Hassell, S. & Mancall. J. (2005). Collection management for youth: Responding to the needs of learners. American Library Association Edition.
Johnson, P. (2009). Fundamentals of collection development and management. American Library Association Edition.
Johnson, P. (2018). Fundamentals of collection development and management (4th ed.). American Library Association Edition.
Keeling, M. (2019). What’s new in collection development?, Knowledge Quest, 48(2), 4-5. https://search.proquest.com/openview/df98b0e57f30ede4e963121d5424d82f/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=6154
Kimball, A. (2020). ETL503 Module 2.1 Time to catch-up on blog posts… https://thinkspace.csu.edu.au/alyssa/2020/04/15/etl503-module-2-1-time-to-catch-up-on-blog-posts/
Kimball, A. (2020). ETL503 What is the difference between a collection development policy and a collection management policy? https://thinkspace.csu.edu.au/alyssa/2020/05/11/what-is-the-difference-between-a-collection-development-policy-and-a-collection-management-policy/
Kimmel, S.C. (2014). Developing collections to empower learners. American Library Association.
Newsum, J.M. (2016). School collection development and resource management in digitally rich environments: An initial literature review. School Libraries Worldwide, 22(1), 97-109.
O’Connell, J., Bales, J. & Mitchell, P. (2015). [R]Evolution in reading cultures: 2020 vision for school libraries. The Australian Library Journal, 64(3), 194-207.
Shaw, W. (2018) Collection development policies for the digital age. In M. Fieldhouse & A. Marshall (Eds.), Collection development in the digital age (pp. 165 -180). Cambridge University Press.
Strong, J. & Galbraith, Q. (2018). Letting the readers have a say: Crowd theory in collection development. College & Research Libraries News, 79(9), 502-504.
