I reviewed 2 Library Collection Management policies for a
Catholic Diocese in Australia and the guidelines produced by the CEO in that
diocese against Barbara Braxton’s Sample Collection Policy (2014).
Policy A is dated 2008.
Policy B is dated 2013.
The CEO guidelines outlines the recommendations for what
should be included in a school library policy and suggested policy structure
including sub-section headings.
I am purposely not naming the school’s these policies belong
to, nor the diocese these schools are in, as I do not have permission to
publish these documents.
Rationale / Purpose
Braxton’s sample policy begins with a rationale – which is
very comprehensive – probably much more so that what would be expected for most
policy documents. From experience, I know that there has been a push in this
diocese to streamline policy documents and a rationale as comprehensive as Braxton’s’
would probably be considered too involved. The CEO guidelines list their first
sub-section as Purpose.
Both Policy A does begin with a rationale that outlines the
libraries position with the school, the experiences of the students and where
it fits in with the State curriculum (which would now be superseded by the
Australian Curriculum). Students are the only stakeholders mentioned there is
no discussion about the purpose or nature of the collection.
Policy B does not begin with a rationale. Instead it begins
with goals of the library, which appear to probably address the school’s
mission statement (although that is not made explicit as the mission statement
is not included). It outlines the beliefs that the decision and actions of the
school library are based on, who the library provides assistance to, and how it
serves to provide that assistance.
Mission Statement
Braxton provides a copy of the school’s mission statement
because it is the platform for all decisions and actions. Neither policy A or B
include this, and it is not required according the CEO guidelines. This is
because it would be included at the beginning of the school’s core document for
easy referral, rather than inclusion in all policies.
The nature of the
users
In this section Braxton provides a situational analysis of
the school demographic and current curriculum needs. The CEO guidelines do not
require this, though I believe it to be an important aspect in defining the
purpose and direction and goals of the library collection. Neither Policy A or B provide a situational
analysis of their schools demographics.
The purpose and role
of the collection
Braxton uses this section to establish what the purpose of
the collection is in order to guide future decisions and actions. Braxton’s
list is comprehensive, addressing teaching, learning and recreational needs of
the staff and student body, the range of resources provided and for what
purpose. Although the CEO guidelines have sub-sections titled Purpose and The
Role of the Resource Library, neither policy A or B specifically refer to the
purpose or role of their collection but some understanding of the purpose and
role of their libraries can be drawn out from other sections.
The nature of the
collection
Braxton uses this section to provide a snapshot of the
current collection to serve as a benchmark for measurement. Braxton indicates
that this is an area in which the goals and priorities should be included.
There are details regarding the acquisition of resources, what is contained in
the current collection e.g. fiction in a variety of formats, and the priorities
and goals of the collection for the life of that policy. These goals are quite
specific and tailored towards the acquisition, evaluation and maintenance of
the collection. The CEO guidelines cover
this area through the sub-sections titled ‘The Scope of the Collection’ and
‘Priorities’.
Policy A has a small section ‘Collection Profile’ which
gives a list of what the current collection contains. Being 6 years old, there
is minimal information on the variety of resource formats. The goals listed in
the policy document are not specific to the acquisition, management and
evaluation of the collection. Nor does it have a section on Priorities as
suggested by the CEO guidelines.
Policy B has a section titled ‘Collection description’ which
outlines what the collection comprises of.
While this section is fairly comprehensive, it is interesting to note
that there is no mention of e-resources, of which there are many being utilized
throughout the school. This policy also
does not have goals listed that are specific to the acquisition, management and
evaluation of the collection. Nor does it have a section on Priorities as
suggested by the CEO guidelines.
The selection of the
collection
In this section, Braxton establishes the general and
specific criteria used for selection, including a list of selection aids, and
cross curriculum perspectives and considerations for the development of a
digital collection. The CEO guidelines are vague with their sections regarding
this – providing for subsections on ‘Procedures’, ‘Responsibility for
selection’ and ‘Objectives of selection’. None of these titles are used in the
actual policy documents. .
Both Policy A and B list some selection criteria in their
collection development section under the section Collection Development, but
these are listed in dot points and not grouped together in areas e.g. accuracy,
authenticity etc. Policy A, despite its age does provide a list of some
specific criteria for e-resources, yet Policy B dated 2013 does not. Both
provide a list of selection aids. Neither policy provides selection criteria
lists in their Appendix.
Funding
Braxton suggests that this section identify the need for a
budget, outline the authority for purchasing, funding priorities, gifts and
donations and accountability measures. The CEO guidelines do not address the
issue and procedures for funding or budget.
Policy A does not address funding or budget, and only
briefly mentions library budgeting as one of the roles of the teacher
librarian. Donations are discussed in a
separate sub-section.
Policy B has a section titled ‘Library funding’ outlining
where the library funding comes from, what the current budget is and what that
budget is aimed to be used for in very broad terms. It does not address funding
priorities. Gifts and donations are discussed in a separate sub-section.
Acquisition
In this section, Braxton identifies acquisition procedures,
selection criteria for suppliers, supplier preferences and considerations for
acquisition of both print and non-print resources.
Although the CEO guidelines provide for a sub-section on
acquisition procedures, neither Policy A nor Policy B provide any details on
acquisition procedures, suppliers or acquisition considerations.
Collection Evaluation
Here, Braxton provides details on criteria and methods used
to evaluate the collection. The CEO guidelines have a sub-section ‘Collection
Review’ with brackets (weeding) following it, but no specific sub-sections for
evaluating the collection beyond de-selection.
Both Policies contain a title ‘Evaluation of the Library’
which is a generic statement about the teacher librarian promoting and
analyzing the collection. No specific details or methods are described as to
how the collection shall be evaluated.
Deselection of
resources
Braxton acknowledges this can be a contentious issue, and
therefore advocates for the need for establishing the purpose, authority and
criteria for the deselection of resources. This section is very detailed,
providing criteria for deselection of print and non-print resources, a
guidelines for age of non-fiction resources, information regarding the disposal
of culled materials.
The CEO guidelines provide for deselection of resources
under the sub-section ‘Collection Review (weeding).
Policy A has a section titled ‘Weeding’ and provides some
details regarding the weeding process and some de-selectioncriteria for both
print and non-print resources. Policy B contains Discard Criteria under their
collection development section. This is a short list of criteria.
Neither policy establishing the purpose for deselection,
have limited details about the deselection process and have no information
listed for disposal of culled materials.
Challenged Materials
Braxton provides a detailed policy for Challenged materials,
contained as an appendix within the Collection Management document. This provides all the necessary information
and forms needed for clear understanding by all parties concerning challenges
to library materials. The CEO guidelines provide a Challenged Materials Policy
for use by schools.
Both Policy A and B provide a form for completion by the
parties challenging materials in the library, but do not provide a Challenged
Materials policy, any information regarding challenged materials procedures for
their school nor do they refer in anyway to the CEO’s Challenged Materials
Policy.
Other Inclusion
Both policies had other information included in their
policies that was not address by Braxton’s sample policy.
Policy A addresses:
the issue of equitable access in some detail
library staffing and the specific role of the
teacher-librarian in that school
stocktaking procedures
details the particular Collection Management software used
explains how the library program meets the curriculum needs
of the school; borrowing procedures and library supervision.
Provides an appendix of a scope and sequence for inquiry
based learning skills for each year level
Policy B addresses:
library staffing and the specific role of the
teacher-librarian, library assistant and
volunteers in that school
copyright guidelines
stocktaking procedures and stocktaking timetable
explains how the library program meets the curriculum needs
of the school; borrowing procedures and library supervision.
Provides an appendix of a scope and sequence for inquiry
based learning skills for each year level
What I learned from
this analysis
While both of these policy documents contained some valuable
information, there was a lack of information regarding the purpose and goals of
many aspects of the management of the collection. The CEO guidelines are, from
my perspective, lacking in providing a firm enough direction through brevity of
information in their guidelines. Instead, they have a list of links to other
websites providing information on writing library policies. Although each
school situation is different and therefore the policy documents of each school
will be different, one would expect that the guidelines would be more detailed
to encourage more consistency in the information provided.
Debowski (2001) states that ‘a major concern of the
collection policy is to delineate the issues that need to be addressed if the
actual library collection is to be well maintained and managed in its selection
and growth’ (p. 126). Neither policy analysed here fully addressed who the
users of the library were, nor did they provide a perspective on the school’s
situational anaylsis, which would impact at a local level to way the collection
is built and maintained, and the goals for the acquisition and maintenance of
the collection. Neither policy provided an outline of specific goals for the
short term and long term management of the library collection, which would make
the funding and selection decisions for the collection difficult.
The acquisition aspect of both policies was non-existent. As
there was no reference to a separate selection policy, it can be assumed one
does not exist (although this might not necessarily be true). As this was not
addressed, there is no clear direction for how the selection criteria are used
for the purpose of acquisition, where the school acquires their resources and
who selects, approves and purchases resources.
While both policies attempted to address the area of
resource selection, the selection criteria listed lacked sufficient details,
did not clearly outline responsibility for selection, the formats considered for
inclusion in the collection and selection limitations. Both policies lacked sufficient detail to
ensure the collection selection addressed the many different aspects of
selection for both print and non-print resources.
Both policies included a form for use regarding challenged
materials, but neither policy ‘established a rational and professional process
for reviewing the resource’ (Debowski, 2001, p. 133). Debowski states that
policies should cover three aspects:
The lodgement of the complaint
The review process
The actions to be taken after the review of the work(s)
and that a standardized process should be established and
made clear in the policy document (p. 135).
There also seemed to be a lack of understanding of what was
involved with evaluation of the collection, as in both policies this area was
very general, almost to the point of being vague.
I found this process time consuming but very valuable. It
would be interesting to go back to the schools these policies came from to see
if a library procedures manual exists that might provide more information about
that library and how it’s collection is managed. In both policies there were
aspects that would be useful, but there is also significant information
missing, that would be necessary for an incoming librarian to know.
References
Braxton, B.
(2014). Sample Collection Policy. In 500
hats – the teacher librarian in the 21st century. Retrieved from
http://500hats.edublogs.org/policies/sample-collection-policy/
Debowski,
S. (2001). Collection
management policies. In K. Dillon, J. Henri & J. McGregor
(Eds.), Providing more with less : collection management for school libraries (2nd
ed.) (pp. 126-136). Wagga Wagga, NSW : Centre for Information Studies, Charles
Sturt University. (on e-reserve).
