Why have a Collection Development Policy (CDP)?
Issues
Snow (2012) stated that an alarming number of libraries do not have a CDP for the entire collection, which calls into question whether it is needed. Biblarz et al. (2001) cite numerous reasons why a CDP is an essential policy for the library, including its importance in providing clear direction for selection, planning, public relations and its connectedness to other organisations. In essence, without a CDP libraries run the risk of collections being directionless, pandering to individual enthusiasms which may not address the overall mission and vision of the organisation (Biblarz et al. 2001). Braxton (2018) further supports this stating its value in guiding the collection to ensure personal agendas are not reflected in the library. Nabulya (2019) expands on this, citing that libraries fall short due to not having a CDP in the following areas: issues of storage, issues of selection criteria and miscommunication between the different stakeholders of the library.
Implications for the TL
Snow’s (2012) research of libraries not using a CDP is unfortunately reflected in many of the discussion forum’s posts. Of the six people who posted on forum 6.1, five articulated that their school does not have a CDP. Therefore one can ask, “Who is making the decisions regarding the curation and vision of the library?” This ultimately depends on the school itself. In my blog post, I stated that within my school’s context (with no TL) the responsibility of curating resources is made by an unqualified librarian technician. With no policy, direction or collaboration from the school’s leadership, resource acquisition is based on personal feelings towards particular content resulting in many challenges and ineffective/ undesirable collections. A CDP (that reflects the mission of the organisation and needs of the patrons) and accountable leadership could help alleviate this issue by providing the framework and justification of the collection, ensuring that what is purchased will be used by the patrons and is aligned with the overall school mission.
Another implication of having a CDP is its capacity to give direction to future proof the collection. Anderson (2009) states that when composing a CDP, TLs should redirect aspects of the library that are becoming more used such as managing digital collections, develop creative ways for the library to be relevant in solving the information needs of its patrons and develop unique collections.
Censorship
Issues
Self-censorship has become a growing and contentious issue within the school library. On one side of the spectrum Rickman (2012) argues that library collections should represent societal knowledge, therefore, unpopular ideas/ viewpoints should not be suppressed. However, SLJ (2016) states an opposing reality citing that more than 90% of TL’s have not curated particular resources out of fear of a challenge from the community. Furthermore, once challenged, more than 25% of TL’s state that it affects their future curation decisions. Fitzsimmons (1996) argues that the responsibility to censor material should fall on the patron who is able to discriminate and make their own knowledge; not the library. Though this altruistic view is complicated when we consider, “Who is the library serving?” in terms of the age of the patrons and any religious/ cultural affiliations of the school community.
Implications for the TL
The religious nature of my current school has a large role to play in the censorship. This brings to mind a book that was recently challenged by a parent, titled “The Boy in the Dress” (Walliams, 2008). This book was seen to be in contrast to the religious ethos of the school. The community were not content with having the students self-censor, which is supported by the work of Dawkins (2018). Based on this example at my school, the importance of a CDP becomes apparent. Had the TL engaged in collaborative dialogue with the school leadership in articulating what resources should be curated to serve the needs of the school and its patrons and if the library had a CDP with a selection criteria this problem may have been avoided.
Furthermore, Baker (2018) states the importance of the TL as a transformational leader who needs to be proactive in building trust, collegiality and collective understanding with the leadership team to ensure all members are on the same page when it comes to curation. Based on this recent problem with the challenged book the relationship between the TL and the school is now reactive rather than proactive. This view was also echoed by myself and Prue Blaxland in the discussion post on censorship where we came to the consensus that the role of the TL needs to be elevated to a position of professional trust and leadership.
Digital Collections
Issues
Another challenge that TL’s face is the rapid and evolving nature of digital collections (Lesk, 2004). In defining what a collection constitutes, ASLA & ALIA (2001) mentions that TL’s must curate and manage resources from various modes including: print, graphic, audio visual and a growing variety of electronic resources. Whether it is a subscription based service, eBooks, software applications etc… The use of digital resources brings forth many issues of ownership, reliability, credibility and above all usability. Odede (2020) proposes a model for digital curation to assist educators select appropriate resources. Referred to as “The Five Cs” it is suggested that educators go through the process of collecting, categorising, critiquing, conceptualizing and circulating when curating resources for students.
Implications for the TL
The main digital collection we have at my library is a subscription to World Book Online. Teachers and students can access this site with a username and password. I have observed that this digital subscription needs to be monitored by the TL to ensure that it is meeting the needs of our patrons. Regular evaluation of the subscription also needs to take place to analyse how much this resource is circulated. This is supported by ASLA and ALIA (2001) who offer a sound procedure to include: ensure all stakeholders have a clear understanding of what is a digital resource and more importantly what it does not include, identify and analyse what is needed by considering each stakeholder of the library and develop and implement a CDP policy which addresses those identified digital needs.
Lesk (2004) further adds another implication which exists as a result of hardware failure and a lack of IL skills. In my blog, I discussed the need for TL to be proactive leaders in ensuring: students have access to connected technology and comprehensively build the skills of its patrons in using digital resources with particular attention to alternatives when the primary means of access fails.
References
Anderson, R. (2008). Future-Proofing the Library: Strategies for Acquisitions, Cataloging, and Collection Development, The Serials Librarian, 55:4, 560-567, DOI: 10.1080/03615260802399908
ASLA and ALIA (2001). Learning for the future : developing information services in schools (2nd ed.). Curriculum Corporation.
Biblarz, D., Tarin, M. J., Vickery, J., & Bakker, T. (2001). Guidelines for a collection development policy using the conspectus model. International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions, Section on Acquisition and Collection Development.
Baker, S. F. (2018). From teacher to school librarian leader and instructional partner: A proposed transformation framework for educators of preservice school librarians. Synergy, 16(1).
Braxton, B. (2016). Sample collection policy. Retrieved [May 14, 2021] from http://500hats.edublogs.org/policies/sample-collection-policy/
Dawkins, A (2018). The Decision by School Librarians to Self-Censor. Teacher Librarian 45 (3) p.8-12
Fitzsimmons, R. (1996). Censorship, Intellectual Freedom, Librarianship and the Democratic State. Libraries, Books, Ideology During the Second World War [1939–1945], National Library of Latvia, Riga, Latvia.
Nabulya, J. (2019). A collection development policy for Kampala Parents School Library (Doctoral dissertation, Makerere University). http://www.dissertations.mak.ac.ug/handle/20.500.12281/6819
Lesk, M. (2004). Understanding digital libraries (2nd ed.). Elsevier.
Odede, I. (2020). Models for Teaching Information Literacy: A Comparative Review of the Top Six Models. Mousaion, 38(2). https://doi.org/10.25159/2663-659X/7254
Rickman, W. (2010). A study of self-censorship by school librarians. School Library Research, 13.
Snow, R. “Wasted words: the written collection development policy and the academic library.”Journal of Academic Librarianship, 22 (May 1996), pp.191-194.
Stephens, C. G., & Franklin, P. (2012). School library collection development: Just the basics. ABC-CLIO.
Walliams, D. (2008) The Boy in The Dress. Harper Collins