![](media/image1.jpeg){width="11.055555555555555in"
height="8.345833333333333in"}

**Second Evaluation of the\
Improving Literacy Through\
School Libraries Program**

by

Joan S. Michie

Bradford W. Chaney

Westat

Rockville, Maryland

Prepared for

U.S. Department of Education

Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development

Policy and Program Studies Service

2009

This report was prepared for the U.S. Department of Education under
Contract No. ED-01-CO-0082/0014. The project monitor was Beth A.
Franklin in the Policy and Program Studies Service. The views expressed
herein are those of the contractor. No official endorsement by the U.S.
Department of Education is intended or should be inferred.

**U.S. Department of Education**

Margaret Spellings

*Secretary*

**Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development**

Bill Evers

*Assistant Secretary*

**Policy and Program Studies Service**

Alan L. Ginsburg

*Director*

**Program and Analytic Studies Division**

David Goodwin

*Director*

**January 2009**

This report is in the public domain. Authorization to reproduce it in
whole or in part is granted. While permission to reprint this
publication is not necessary, the suggested citation is: U.S. Department
of Education, Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development,
Policy and Program Studies Service, *Second Evaluation of the Improving
Literacy through School Libraries Program,* Washington, D.C., 2009.

To order copies of this report, write to

ED Pubs

Education Publications Center

U. S. Department of Education

P. O. Box 1398

Jessup, MD 20794-1398;

To order through fax, dial 301-470-1244;

To order by phone, call toll-free: 1-877-433-7827 (1-877-4-ED-PUBS). If
the 877 service is not available in your area, call 1-800-872-5327
(1-800-USA-LEARN); those who use a telecommunications device for the
deaf (TDD) or a teletypewriter (TTY) should call 1-800-437-0833.

To order online, point your Internet browser to
[http://edpubs.ed.gov](http://edpubs.ed.gov/)

This report is also available on the Department's Web site at:
http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/opepd/ppss/index.html.

On request, this publication is available in alternative formats such as
Braille, large print, or computer diskette. For more information, please
contact the Department's Alternate Format Center at 202-260-0852 or
202-260-0818.

contents

**Exhibits** iv

**Executive Summary** xiii

**1. Introduction** 1

Characteristics of the Program 1

Overview of the Evaluation 3

**2. Research on School Libraries and Literacy** 7

Association of School Libraries With Student Test Scores 7

Characteristics That Are Associated With Higher Student Test Scores 9

**3. Program Implementation** 11

> How Districts Allocate Program Funds 12
>
> Other Outside Support for Literacy and Libraries 16

How Schools Allocate Funds 17

**4. School-Level Changes Associated With the Program** 21

Needs Assessment 21

Resources 24

Involvement of Students 34

Services Offered 40

Staffing of School Libraries 44

Professional Development Related to School Libraries 45

Collaboration With Teachers 49

Libraries That Received Grants for Two or Three Years 52

**5. Achievement Analysis** 55

Methodology 55

Limitations and Design Issues 65

Presentation of Multiple Measurements of Test Scores 67

Findings 69

**6. Conclusions** 75

Summary of Findings: How Do Districts Allocate Funds and Are They
Targeted to Schools With the Greatest Need for Improved Library
Resources? 75

Summary of Findings: How Are Funds Used (e.g., to Buy Books, Improve
Technology, Increase Library Hours, or Provide Professional Development
for Library and Reading Staff, etc.? 76

Summary of Findings: What Is the Relationship Between Participation in
This Program and Staff Collaboration and Coordination? 76

Summary of Findings: How Do Reading Achievement Scores Vary in Schools
That Received Grants for 1, 2, or 3 Years Compared With Matched
Comparison Schools That Have Not Received Grants? 77

**References** 79

**APPENDICES**

Appendix

**A Detailed Tables** 81

**B Methodology** 123

**C School Library Questionnaire** 133

**D District Performance Report** 151

**E Case Study Protocols** 161

**F Case Study Summaries** 175

exhibits

Exhibit

1 Percentage of Grantee and Nongrantee School Libraries Identifying
Various Needs Through a Needs Assessment, Fall 2006 xiii

2 Mean Expenditures on materials by School Libraries, by Grantee Status,
2004--05 and 2005--06 School Years xiv

3 Provision of Access During Nonschool Hours, by Grantee Status, Spring
2006 and 2005 xv

1-1 Improving Literacy Through School Libraries Program Grant Awards, by
Award Cycle, 2002--2007 2

1-2 Percentage of Schools With Selected Characteristics, by
Participation Status, 2005--06 School Year 5

2-1 Library Services and Characteristics Positively Associated With
Student Test Scores 10

3-1 Characteristics of Districts Receiving LSL Grants, 2004--05 and
2005--06 School Years 12

3-2 Methods Districts Use to Select Schools for Participation in the LSL
Grant During the 2005--06, 2004--05 and 2003--04 School Years 13

3-3 Methods Used to Distribute Grant Moneys to Schools, 2005--06 School
Year 14

3-4 Percentage of Districts Using Various Methods to Distribute Grant
Money to Schools, 2005--06, 2004--05 and 2003--04 School Years 14

3-5 Percentage of Districts Using Various Personnel to Decide Which
Schools to Serve and How Grant Funds Should Be Spent, 2005--06 and
2003--04 School Years 15

exhibits (continued)

Exhibit

3-6 Percentage of Grant Funding Spent by Category, 2005--06 School Year
15

3-7 Percentage of School Libraries Receiving Funding From Various
Federal Education Programs, by Grantee Status, 2005--06 School Year 16

3-8 Percentage of School Libraries Receiving Funding From Various
Outside Sources During the 2005--06 School Year, by Grantee Status 17

3-9 Percentage of LSL Funds Spent by Districts, 2005--06, 2004--05 and
2003--04 School Years 18

3-10 Mean Expenditures on Materials by School Libraries, by Grantee
Status, 2004--05 and 2005--06 School Years 18

3-11 Mean expenditures by School Libraries on Selected Materials, by
Grantee Status, 2005--06 School Year 19

4-1 Percentage of School Libraries Identifying Various Resource-Related
Needs Through a Needs Assessment and the Percentage That Made Changes,
by Grantee Status, Fall 2006 22

4-2 Percentage of School Libraries Identifying Various Staffing-Related
Needs Through a Needs Assessment and the Percentage That Made Changes,
by Grantee Status, Fall 2006 23

4-3 Percentage of School Libraries Reporting That Their Holdings Were
Excellent or Adequate in Supporting the Instructional Program in
English, by Type of Material and Grantee Status, Spring 2005 and 2006 25

4-4 Percentage of School Libraries Reporting That Their Resources Were
Excellent or Adequate in the Grant Year and the Year Before the Grant
Year, by Type of Resource and Grantee Status, Spring 2006 and 2005 26

4-5 Mean Acquisitions and Holdings of Grantee and Nongrantee School
Libraries, by Type of Material, 2005--06 School Year 27

4-6 Copyright Date of School Libraries' Most Recent General
Encyclopedia, by Grantee Status, Fall 2006 27

4-7 Percentage of School Libraries Indicating That Various Factors Were
Very or Somewhat Important in Selecting Books to Add to Their
Collection, by Grantee Status, Fall 2006 28

4-8 Percentage of School Libraries in Which Various Electronic Services
Were Not Available, by Grantee Status, Fall 2006 30

exhibits (continued)

Exhibit

4-9 Percentage of School Libraries Reporting That Various Electronic
Services Were Networked to Locations Outside of the Library, by Grantee
Status, Fall 2006 31

4-10 Most Frequent Approach Used by Grantee and Nongrantee Schools to
Provide Various Electronic Services, by Type of Service, Fall 2006 31

4-11 Percentage of School Libraries With Computer Access to the Catalogs
of Other Libraries, by Grantee Status, Fall 2006 32

4-12 Percentage of School Libraries That Participated in Various
Cooperative Activities With Local Public Libraries, by Grantee Status,
Fall 2006 and 2004 33

4-13 Number of Hours That School Libraries Were Open During a Typical
Full Week,\
by Grantee Status, 2006 and 2005 34

4-14 Number of Days That School Libraries Were Open During the Summer,\
by Grantee Status, 2006 and 2005 35

4-15 Percentage of Libraries Open During Nonschool Hours, by Grantee
Status, Spring 2006 and 2005 36

4-16 Mean Number of Nonschool Hours of Library Access per Week, by
Grantee Status, Spring 2006 and 2005 37

4-17 Mean Number of Nonschool Hours of Access per Week to School
Libraries, by Time of Access and Grantee Status, Spring 2005 and 2006 38

4-18 Percentage of School Libraries Saying That Various Factors Were
Either Major or Moderate Barriers to Extending Library Hours, by Grantee
Status, Fall 2006 39

4-19 Mean Usage of Library Resources per Student, by Grantee Status,
Spring 2006 and 2005 40

4-20 Percentage of School Libraries Offering Selected Services on a
Daily or Monthly Basis, by Grantee Status, 2005--06 School Year 41

4-21 Percentage of School Libraries Providing New or Expanded General
Programs or Services in 2005--06, by Grantee Status 42

4-22 Percentage of School Libraries Providing New or Expanded Programs
Relating to Reading or English in 2005--06, by Grantee Status 43

4-23 Mean Number of School Library Staff, by Grantee Status, Spring 2006
and 2005 44

exhibits (continued)

Exhibit

4-24 Mean Number of Pupils per Librarian, by Grantee Status, Spring 2006
and 2005 45

4-25 Mean Number of Staff Members Participating in Professional
Development,\
by Grantee Status, 2005--06 and 2003--04 School Years 46

4-26 Percentage of School Libraries Covering Selected Topics in
Professional Development Activities, by Grantee Status, 2005--06 School
Year 47

4-27 Percentage of School Libraries Covering Selected Topics in
Professional Development Activities, by Grantee Status, 2005--06 and
2004--05 School Years 48

4-28 Percentage of School Libraries With Library Staff Members Working
With Classroom Teachers on a Weekly Basis, by Grantee Status, 2005--06
School Year 49

4-29 Percentage of School Libraries Providing Selected Services to
Classroom Teachers in Reading or English, by Grantee Status, 2005--06
School Year 50

4-30 Approaches Used to Provide Instruction in Information Skills, by
Grantee Status, 2005--06 School Year 51

4-31 Comparison of Library Characteristics Before 2005--06 Grants, by
Grantee Status 53

5-1 Comparison of Grantees and Nongrantees, by School Characteristics in
2002--03 58

5-2 Comparison of Grantees and Nongrantees, by Mean Test Scores in
Reading 59

5-3 Regression Models to Estimate Association of 2003--04 LSL Grants
With 2004--05 Test Scores, With Various Baseline Years for Test Results
68

5-4 Regression Models to Estimate Association of LSL Grants With Student
Test Scores, Using 2002--03 Test Scores (Where Available) to Predict
2004--05 Test Scores,\
by Instructional Level 71

exhibits (continued)

Exhibit

A-1 Percentage of Districts Using Various Methods to Select Schools for
Participation in the Grant and to Distribute Grant Money to the Schools,
by District Characteristics,\
2005--06 School Year 83

A-2 Percentage of Districts Using Various Personnel to Decide Which
Schools to Serve,\
by District Characteristics, 2005--06 School Year 84

A-3 Percentage of Districts Using Various Personnel to Decide How the
Grant Funds Should be Spent, by District Characteristics, 2005--06
School Year 85

A-4 Percentage of Districts Using Various Personnel to Decide Which
Schools to Serve and How Grant Funds Should Be Spent, by Personnel Type,
2003--04, 2004--05 and\
2005--06 School Years 86

A-5 Percentage of Grant Funding Spent by Category, by District
Characteristics, 2005--06 School Year 87

A-6 Total Grant Funding and Amount and Percentage of Funding Spent, by
Category, 2004--05 and 2005--06 School Years 88

A-7 Mean Expenditures in School Libraries and Percentage Change of Those
Expenditures Between the 2004--05 and 2005--06 School Years, by School
Characteristics 89

A-8 Mean Expenditures for All Materials in the 2004--05 and 2005--06
School Years and Distribution of 2005--06 Expenditures Among Selected
Materials, by School Characteristics 90

A-9 Percentage of School Libraries That Conducted a Needs Assessment in
the Last Two Years, and Percentage of Those Libraries That Identified
Particular Needs, by School Characteristics, Fall 2006 91

A-10 Percentage of School Libraries That Made Changes as the Result of a
Needs Assessment in the Last Two Years, by School Characteristics, Fall
2006 92

A-11 Percentage of School Libraries' Holdings That Support the
Instructional Program in English, by Degree of Adequacy, Grantee Status
and Type of Material, Spring 2005 and 2006 93

A-12 Percentage of School Libraries Reporting That Their Holdings in
Supporting the Instructional Program in English Were Adequate or
Excellent, by School Characteristics, Spring 2005 and 2006 94

exhibits (continued)

Exhibit

A-13 Percentage of School Libraries Reporting the Adequacy of Their
Resources in Specified Areas, by Grantee Status, Spring 2005 and 2006 95

A-14 Percentage of School Libraries Reporting That Their Resources Were
Excellent or Adequate in Specified Areas, by School Characteristics,
Spring 2005 and 2006 96

A-15 Recency of Copyrights of Holdings at School Libraries, by School
Characteristics,\
Fall 2006 97

A-16 Percentage of Schools Indicating the Importance of Various Factors
in Their Library's Choice of Books to Add During the 2005--06 School
Year, by Grantee Status 98

A-17 Percentage of School Libraries Reporting That Various Factors Were
Very or Somewhat Important When Selecting Books to Add to the Collection
During the 2005--06 School Year, by School Characteristics 99

A-18 Percentage of School Libraries Reporting That Various Electronic
Services Were Available on Different Kinds of Networks, by Grantee
Status, Fall 2006 100

A-19 Percentage of School Libraries Reporting That Various Electronic
Services Were Networked to Locations Outside of the Library, by School
Characteristics, Fall 2006 101

A-20 Percentage of School Libraries With Computer Access to Catalogs of
Other Libraries, by Type of Library and School Characteristics, Fall
2006 102

A-21 Percentage of School Libraries That Participated in Cooperative
Activities With Local Public Libraries and the Ways They Participated in
the Last 12 Months,\
by School Characteristics, Fall 2006 103

A-22 Mean Length of Time the School Library Was Open, by School
Characteristics,\
Spring 2005 and 2006 104

A-23 Access to the School Library During Nonschool Hours, by School
Characteristics, Spring 2005 and 2006 105

A-24 Percentage of School Libraries Using Extended Hours for Various
Activities\
During the 2005--06 School Year, by School Characteristics 106

A-25 Percentage of School Libraries Reporting Major or Moderate Barriers
to Providing Services During Nonschool Hours, by School Characteristics,
Spring 2006 107

exhibits (continued)

Exhibit

A-26 Percentage of School Libraries Reporting Barriers to Providing
Services During Nonschool Hours, by Grantee Status, Spring 2006 108

A-27 Mean Usage of School Library Resources per Student, by School
Characteristics,\
Spring 2005 and 2006 109

A-28 Percentage of School Libraries Offering Selected Services and the
Frequency of Those Services, by Grantee Status, 2005--06 School Year 110

A-29 Percentage of School Libraries Reporting That They Provide Selected
Services,\
by the Highest Listed Level of Frequency and School Characteristics,
2005--06 School Year 111

A-30 Percentage of School Libraries Indicating Changes in Their
Provision of Selected Services, by Grantee Status and Type of Service,
2005--06 School Year 112

A-31 Percentage of School Libraries Providing Selected New or Expanded
General Programs, by School Characteristics, 2005--06 School Year 113

A-32 Percentage of School Libraries Providing Selected New or Expanded
Programs Related to Reading/English, by School Characteristics, 2005--06
School Year 114

A-33 Mean Number of Staff per School Library and Pupils per Librarian,
by School Characteristics, Spring 2005 and 2006 115

A-34 Percentage of Schools Offering Professional Development Related to
School Libraries, by Topic Area and School Characteristics, 2005--06
School Year 116

A-35 Percentage of Schools Offering Professional Development Related to
School Libraries, by Grantee Status, 2004--05 and 2005--06 School Years
117

A-36 Percentage of School Libraries Reporting That Library Staff Members
Worked With Classroom Teachers on Selected Curriculum Areas at Various
Frequency Rates,\
by Grantee Status, 2005--06 School Year 118

A-37 Percentage of School Libraries Reporting That Library Staff Members
Worked Weekly With Classroom Teachers on Selected Curriculum Areas, by
School Characteristics, 2005--06 School Year 119

A-38 Percentage of School Libraries Reporting That Library Staff Members
Provided Selected Services to Classroom Teachers in the Area of Reading
or English at Various Frequency Rates, by Grantee Status, 2005--06
School Year 120

exhibits (continued)

Exhibit

A-39 Percentage of School Libraries Reporting That Library Staff Members
Provided Selected Services to Classroom Teachers in the Area of Reading
or English,\
by School Characteristics, 2005--06 School Year 121

A-40 Percentage of School Libraries Providing Instruction in Information
Skills Through Various Approaches, by School Characteristics, 2005--06
School Year 122

B-1 Number of Schools Sampled and Number Responses 129

B-2 Selected Standard Errors for School Survey Statistics 132

**Executive Summary**

The Improving Literacy Through School Libraries (LSL) program was
established under Title I, Part B, Subpart 4 of the *Elementary and
Secondary Education Act* (*ESEA*) by the *No Child Left Behind Act* *of
2001* (*NCLB*). The purpose of the program is to improve the literacy
skills and academic achievement of students by providing them with
increased access to up-to-date school library materials; a
well-equipped, technologically advanced school library media center; and
well-trained, professionally certified school library media specialists.

Included in the legislation was a requirement for an evaluation of the
program to be conducted no later than three years after the enactment of
*NCLB* and biennially after that. This report provides findings from the
second evaluation of the LSL program. It contains new survey data on the
2005--06 school year and an analysis of the relationship between student
test scores and the receipt of LSL grants in 2003--04.

> Key Findings

-   Districts often reported selecting schools to participate in the
    grant based on various kinds of disadvantages at those schools such
    as lack of library resources, poverty level, and those identified
    for improvement under *NCLB*.

-   Grantees roughly tripled their expenditures on books and
    subscriptions as well as computer hardware, while nongrantees showed
    little change.

-   Before the grant, significantly fewer grantees considered their
    reading/English materials to be adequate or excellent compared with
    nongrantees. In contrast, during the grant year, significantly more
    of the grantees considered their overall reading/English literature,
    print materials, and computer software to be adequate or excellent
    compared with nongrantees.

-   To the extent that libraries increased the hours they were open, one
    might expect that student use of the libraries would increase, for
    example, in the number of students using the libraries in a typical
    week or in the number of materials that were checked out. However,
    as in the first evaluation, grantees showed an increase in student
    usage of the libraries per week but no significant change in number
    of materials checked out.

-   Grantees were more likely than nongrantees to report establishing
    new programs or expanding existing programs that involved
    collaboration between school library media specialists, teachers and
    administrators.

-   No definitive statement can be made based on these data as to
    whether LSL was associated with improved test scores.

Characteristics of the Improving Literacy Through School Libraries
Program

The LSL program is a competitive grant award program with two
eligibility requirements: (1) an applicant must be a local educational
agency (LEA) (which in some instances may include a charter school,
regional service agency, or state-administered school designated as an
LEA),[^1] and (2) at least 20 percent of the students in the LEA must be
from families with incomes below the poverty line. There are no specific
eligibility criteria for the schools in which grant recipients use the
LSL funds.

Districts may use program funds to do the following:

-   Acquire up-to-date school library media resources, including books;

-   Acquire and use advanced technology, incorporated into the curricula
    of the school, to develop and enhance the information literacy,
    information retrieval and critical thinking skills of students;

-   Facilitate Internet links and other resource-sharing networks among
    schools, school library media centers and public and academic
    libraries, where possible;

-   Provide professional development for school library media
    specialists and activities that foster increased collaboration
    between school library media specialists, teachers and
    administrators; and

-   Provide students with access to school libraries during nonschool
    hours, including the hours before and after school, during weekends
    and during summer vacation periods.

Grants for the LSL program are for one year, although many projects in
the early years of the program have received time extensions. Beginning
with the 2005 cohort, time extensions have not generally been given.

Overview of the Evaluation

The key evaluation questions were as follows:

-   How do districts allocate grant funds and are they targeted to
    schools with the greatest need for improved library resources?

-   How are funds used (e.g., to buy books, improve technology, increase
    library hours, or provide professional development for library and
    reading staff, etc.)?

-   What is the relationship between participation in this program and
    staff collaboration and coordination?

-   How do reading achievement scores vary in schools that received
    grants for 1, 2 or 3 years compared with matched comparison schools
    that have not received grants?

The following four data sources were used in the evaluation.

-   **A survey of school libraries.** The survey was sent in fall 2006
    to a sample of 400 school libraries served by the grant in 2005--06
    (grantees) and to a comparison sample of 400 schools matched on a
    variety of district and school characteristics[^2] in districts that
    were eligible for the grant in that year (nongrantees).

-   **The district performance reports.** Each grant recipient must
    submit a report to the U.S. Department of Education, components of
    which include a description of the project; highlights of key
    accomplishments; a report on how the district met each of its
    project objectives; a project evaluation; and information on
    expenditures, schools served and professional development.
    Performance reports from districts receiving the grant in 2004--05
    and 2005--06 were analyzed for this evaluation.

-   **Case study site visit reports.** Site visits were made to nine
    school districts, including one or two schools within the districts
    visited. The visits focused on promising school library practices in
    districts that had received LSL grants in 2003 through 2005. Site
    selection was based on performance and demographic data. Site visits
    were conducted either by one person or by two-person teams between
    November 2006 and January 2007.

-   **Test scores.** Annual school-level test score data on students'
    proficiency in reading/language arts were obtained from the National
    Longitudinal School-Level State Assessment Database. This database
    is a compilation of test results from each state's proficiency
    exams. *NCLB* uses these results for accountability purposes. The
    most recent test score data available at the time of this report
    were for 2005, which was before receipt of the LSL grants by the
    grantees surveyed in this evaluation. Therefore, the test score data
    were merged with the survey data from the first LSL evaluation to
    measure whether changes in school libraries were associated with
    changes in student test scores. Of the 701 respondents to the 2004
    survey, test scores were available for 553 schools (79 percent).
    Baseline data from the year before these grants (2002--03) were
    available for only 40 percent of the sample.

Results and Conclusions

The results address each of the key evaluation questions.

Targeting of Program Funds

-   Generally, the approaches used by districts to select schools for
    participation in the grant have been the same each year between
    2003--04 and 2005--06. Districts often reported selecting schools to
    participate in the grant based on various kinds of disadvantages at
    those schools: 36 percent chose schools based on a lack of library
    resources, 22 percent based on the poverty level, and 20 percent
    based on those identified for improvement under *NCLB*.

-   The survey of library media centers confirmed that, on many
    characteristics, the grantee schools started with a relative
    disadvantage as compared with nongrantee schools.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Among those districts conducting needs assessments, grantees were
    significantly more likely than nongrantees to identify needs for
    more library staff (55 percent versus 33 percent), more up-to-date
    materials (95 percent versus 85 percent), and more space (51 percent
    versus 33 percent). It should be noted that funding for more space
    is not covered by LSL. Additional needs identified more frequently
    by grantees were more hours when the library was open (75 percent
    versus 41 percent), more time for planning with teachers (64 percent
    versus 40 percent), and more professional development (75 percent
    versus 57 percent) (Exhibit 1). Overall, the percentage of grantees
    and nongrantees identifying various needs was about the same in the
    first and second evaluations.

-   Before the grant, grantees were more likely than nongrantees to
    report that their holdings were inadequate in all four general areas
    examined in the survey: the overall reading/English collection (34
    percent versus 22 percent), print materials (35 percent versus
    23 percent), video/ audiovisual materials (52 percent versus
    37 percent), and computer software (57 percent versus 44 percent).
    ![](media/image3.wmf){width="3.229861111111111in"
    height="2.459722222222222in"}

Use of Program Funds

The grantees made a large number of improvements during the 2005--06
school year, when they received the grant, while relatively little
change occurred among the nongrantees. Following are some of the major
changes:

![](media/image4.wmf){width="3.827777777777778in"
height="3.402083333333333in"}

-   Grantees roughly tripled their expenditures on books and
    subscriptions as well as computer hardware, while nongrantees showed
    little change (Exhibit 2).

-   Of those that conducted needs assessments, the grantees were often
    more likely to make changes, including getting more up-to-date
    materials (92 percent versus 78 percent), increasing professional
    development (68 percent versus 41 percent), increasing the number of
    hours the library was open (62 percent versus 24 percent) and
    providing more time for planning with teachers (39 percent versus\
    21 percent). Overall, the percentage of grantees and nongrantees
    making changes to address needs was about the same in the first and
    second evaluations.

-   The first evaluation found that overall, the grants seemed to
    compensate for grantees' earlier disadvantages and bring them to
    rough equality with the nongrantees whereas the second evaluation
    found that the grants enabled the grantees to surpass the
    nongrantees. In spring 2005, before the grant, significantly fewer
    grantees considered their reading/English materials to be adequate
    or excellent compared with nongrantees for all types of materials,
    namely, overall reading/English literature, print materials,
    video/audiovisual materials, and computer software. In contrast, in
    spring 2006, during the grant year, significantly more of the
    grantees considered their overall reading/English literature, print
    materials and computer software to be adequate or excellent compared
    with nongrantees.

-   In both the first and second evaluations, grantees often were more
    likely to provide new or expanded programs than nongrantees. In the
    second evaluation, these programs included providing instruction on
    information skills (52 percent versus 36 percent), working with
    classroom teachers on selecting reading or English resources (49
    percent versus 33 percent), holding family literacy nights (38
    percent versus 13 percent), and holding after-school programs
    offering an orientation to the library (34 percent versus
    8 percent).

-   Grantees increased access to libraries in several ways. During the
    school year, 39 percent of grantees provided access during nonschool
    hours in 2005, and 72 percent in 2006. Among nongrantees, the
    statistics were 54 percent in 2005 and 56 percent in 2006 (Exhibit
    3). Grantees increased the number of days the library was open
    during the summer from a mean of 2.9 days in 2005 to 7.7 days in
    2006, compared with no significant change among nongrantees in the
    amount of summer access. In the first evaluation, grantees showed a
    significant increase in the days that the libraries were open in the
    summer, while the grantees showed no significant change.

-   To the extent that libraries increased the hours they were open, one
    might expect that student usage of the libraries would
    increase---for example, in the number of students using the
    libraries in a typical week or in the number of materials that were
    checked out. As in the first evaluation, grantees showed an increase
    in usage per week but no significant change in number of materials
    checked out.![](media/image5.wmf){width="3.816666666666667in"
    height="2.9069444444444446in"}

Relationship Between Participation in the Program and Staff
Collaboration and Coordination

-   Grantees were more likely than nongrantees to report establishing
    new programs or expanding existing programs that involved
    collaboration. Specifically, these programs include programs to have
    library media staff members assist teachers in designing,
    implementing and evaluating research projects for students (42
    percent versus 24 percent), coordinate training programs about
    integrating educational technology into the curriculum for teachers
    and other staff members (42 percent versus 22 percent), work with
    the principal and/or teachers on curriculum issues (40 percent
    versus 23 percent), and participate in team meetings (36 percent
    versus 23 percent). In the first evaluation, grantees were also more
    likely than nongrantees to have increased services involving
    collaboration.

> **Relationship Between Participation in the Program and Reading
> Achievement Scores**

-   No definitive statement can be made based on these data on whether
    LSL was associated with improved test scores.

-   One of the primary features of the LSL program---increasing the size
    of the book collections---was significantly related to increased
    test scores. On average, each additional book per student that
    libraries obtained was associated with an increase of 0.44
    percentage points in student test scores. LSL participation was
    associated with purchasing 1,250 additional books in 2004--05 (520
    more than nongrantees), or about 2.9 additional books per student
    (1.5 more than among nongrantees). Based on these statistics, the
    expected total improvement associated with the book-purchasing
    component of the LSL program would be an increase of 1.3 percentage
    points, and the expected improvement with relation to nongrantees
    would be an increase of 0.7 percentage points.

The findings from the analyses of student reading achievement should be
interpreted with considerable caution. The LSL and non-LSL schools were
not randomly assigned to treatment and control groups. Although the LSL
and non-LSL schools are similar on the demographic variables available
to the study, achievement data were not available for matching at the
time of sampling. Later analyses showed only small differences, but we
were unable to verify baseline equivalence on achievement because of
missing baseline data for 60 percent of the respondents. Therefore, we
cannot assume that the two groups of schools are equivalent except for
the fact that one group received LSL funds while the other did not.
Thus, the findings cannot support causal inferences that attribute
observed differences in student reading achievement between LSL and
non-LSL schools to the LSL program.[^3]

**Chapter 1**

**Introduction**

The Improving Literacy Through School Libraries (LSL) program was
established under Title I, Part B, Subpart 4 of the *Elementary and
Secondary Education Act* (*ESEA*) by the *No Child Left Behind Act* *of
2001* (*NCLB*). The purpose of the program is to improve the literacy
skills and academic achievement of students by providing them with
increased access to up-to-date school library materials; a
well-equipped, technologically advanced school library media center; and
well-trained, professionally certified school library media specialists.
Included in the legislation was a requirement for an evaluation of the
program to be conducted no later than three years after the enactment of
NCLB and biennially after that. This report provides findings from the
first biennial evaluation, referenced as the second evaluation in the
report.

The first chapter of this report contains a description of the LSL
program and an overview of the evaluation. Because the LSL program
infers a linkage between school libraries and literacy, a brief overview
of the research on this topic is presented in the second chapter of this
report. Evaluation results on the implementation of the program are
shown in the third chapter, which examines how districts allocate
program funds to schools, how schools allocate library funds, and how
other outside support is found for literacy and libraries. The fourth
chapter discusses what school-level changes were associated with
participation in the LSL program. The evaluation explored many
dimensions of a school library that might change through participation
in the program, including resources available, extended hours, services
offered, staffing, professional development, and collaboration with
teachers. The fifth chapter provides the results of an analysis of the
relationship of certain library characteristics and student test scores.
The conclusions of the evaluation are contained in the sixth chapter of
this report.

Characteristics of the Program

The LSL program is one of several programs in the current *ESEA*
designed to improve students' reading skills. It is a competitive grant
award program with two eligibility requirements. The first requirement
is that the applicant must be a local educational agency (LEA) (which in
some instances may include a charter school, regional service agency, or
a state-administered school designated as an LEA).[^4] The second
eligibility requirement is that at least 20 percent of the students in
the LEA must be from families with incomes below the poverty line. The
poverty rate is based on data from the U.S. Census Bureau and is a
stricter measure than the free and reduced-price lunch statistic. There
are no specific eligibility criteria for the schools in which districts
use the LSL funds; it is up to the district to determine which schools
receive the funding.

Districts may use program funds to do the following:

-   Acquire up-to-date school library media resources, including books;

-   Acquire and use advanced technology, incorporated into the curricula
    of the school, to develop and enhance information literacy, to
    assist in information retrieval, and to develop critical thinking
    skills of students;

-   Facilitate Internet links and other resource-sharing networks among
    schools, school library media centers, and public and academic
    libraries, where possible;

-   Provide professional development for school library media
    specialists and activities that foster increased collaboration
    between school library media specialists, teachers and
    administrators; and

-   Provide students with access to school libraries during nonschool
    hours, including the hours before and after school, during weekends
    and during summer vacation periods.

Grants for the LSL program are for one year, although many projects in
the early years of the program received time extensions. Beginning with
the 2005 cohort, time extensions have not generally been given. Thus
far, the program has had five award cycles, and grants for the sixth
cycle were awarded in June 2007 and began on September 1, 2007. (Exhibit
1-1).

**Exhibit 1-1**

**Improving Literacy Through School Libraries Program Grant Awards,\
by Award Cycle, 2002--2007**

+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| Award     | Total     | Number of | Average\  | Smallest\ | Largest\  |
| cycle     | amount    | awards    | award     | award     | award     |
|           | available |           |           |           |           |
|           | for award |           |           |           |           |
|           |           |           |           |           |           |
|           | (in \$    |           |           |           |           |
|           | millions) |           |           |           |           |
+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| 2002      | \$12.4    | 94        | \$130,000 | \$24,000  | \$350,000 |
+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| 2003      | \$12.5    | 73        | \$165,000 | \$20,000  | \$335,000 |
+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| 2004      | \$19.8    | 92        | \$212,000 | \$30,000  | \$399,000 |
+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| 2005      | \$19.7    | 85        | \$225,000 | \$26,000  | \$350,000 |
+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| 2006      | \$19.5    | 78        | \$250,000 | \$30,000  | \$300,000 |
+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| 2007      | \$18.9    | 78        | \$240,000 | \$61,000  | \$399,000 |
+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+

Exhibit reads: In 2002, the total funds available for LSL grants was
\$12.4 million. There were 94 grant awards with an average amount of
\$130,000. The smallest award was \$24,000 and the largest was
\$350,000.

*Source:* Improving Literacy Through School Libraries program Web site,
www.ed.gov/programs/lstl/index.html.

The legislation that established the LSL program specified that
applications to the program must

-   Contain a needs assessment relating to the need for school library
    media improvement;

-   Describe how the funds would be used;

-   Tell how school library media specialists, teachers, administrators
    and parents would be involved in the project activities;

-   Show how the programs and materials used in the project are grounded
    in scientifically based research;

-   Describe how the funds and project activities will be coordinated
    with other federal, state and local funds for literacy, school
    libraries, technology and professional development; and

-   Show how the district will collect and analyze data on the quality
    and effect of project activities.

The LSL Web site contains a guidebook for assisting districts in
preparing their applications. The site also provides poverty information
so school districts can determine whether they are eligible to apply. A
group of districts may submit a joint application to the program, but
all districts must be individually eligible for it.

Overview of the Evaluation

The legislation establishing the LSL program required that an evaluation
be conducted no later than three years after the enactment of *NCLB*.
The first such evaluation covered school libraries served by grants in
2003--04 and included a sample of comparable nongrantees to better
understand how the LSL program was associated with different school
library practices and student outcomes. This report is based on data
covering the 2005--06 school year and contains comparisons with data
from the first evaluation. In addition, student test scores for 2003--05
were analyzed for 2003--04 grantees.

The key evaluation questions for the second evaluation are shown below.
The first three questions were also addressed in the first evaluation,
but the final question is new to the second evaluation.

-   How do districts allocate grant funds and are they targeted to
    schools with the greatest need for improved library resources?

-   How are funds used (e.g., to buy books, improve technology, increase
    library hours, or provide professional development for library and
    reading staff, etc.)?

-   What is the relationship between participation in this program and
    staff collaboration and coordination?

-   How do reading achievement scores vary in schools that received
    grants for 1, 2 or 3 years compared with matched comparison schools
    that have not received grants?

Four data sources were used in the evaluation. Two of them, the survey
of school libraries and the district performance reports, were updates
of data sources used in the first evaluation. New sources for the second
evaluation were the case study site visit reports and analysis of extant
student achievement data. These data sources are described below:

-   **A survey of school libraries.** The survey was sent in fall 2006
    to a sample of 400 school libraries served by the grant in 2005--06
    (grantees) and to a comparison sample of 400 schools matched on a
    variety of district and school characteristics in districts that
    were eligible for the grant in that year (nongrantees). The
    district-level characteristics that were used in the matching
    process included region, district poverty status, school district
    type, urbanicity, and district enrollment size. The school-level
    characteristics that were used in the matching process included
    instructional level, school type, enrollment size, type of
    locale, percentage of students belonging to racial or ethnic
    minorities, and percentage receiving free or reduced-price
    lunches.[^5] Special attention was given to identifying similar
    comparison schools for those few grantee schools with unusual
    characteristics (charter school districts or single-school
    districts). The response rate was 88 percent for the grantees,
    83 percent for the nongrantees, and 85 percent overall. Detailed
    survey results are shown in Appendix A. Details about the
    methodology are shown in Appendix B, and a copy of the school
    library survey is shown in Appendix C. Survey results covering the
    2005--06 school year were compared with results from the first
    evaluation, which examined the 2003--04 school year.

-   **The district performance reports.** Each grant recipient must
    submit a report to the U.S. Department of Education within 90 days
    of the end of the grant period. Components of these reports include
    a description of the project; highlights of key accomplishments; a
    report on how the district met each of its project objectives; a
    project evaluation; and information on expenditures, schools served
    and professional development. A copy of the report format is shown
    in Appendix D. Performance reports from districts receiving the
    grant in 2004--05 and 2005--06 were analyzed for this evaluation.
    Performance report data from 2003--04 grantees, which were analyzed
    in the first evaluation, were compared with the data from more
    recent grantees.

-   **Case study site visit reports.** Site visits were made to nine
    school districts to provide more detailed information about school
    library programs than would be available from survey data. The
    visits focused on promising school library practices in districts
    that had received LSL grants in 2003 through 2005. Thus, the
    selected sites were not representative of all districts receiving
    LSL grants. Criteria for selecting sites included whether the
    districts and schools had met adequate yearly progress,[^6] whether
    there was some indication that promising practices were occurring in
    the district, whether most of the key staff members were still
    working in the district, and whether as a whole the nine sites
    reflected diversity on various demographic variables. During the
    site visits, interviews were conducted with the program
    administrator at the district level, principals, school librarians
    and classroom teachers. In addition, observations were made of
    activities connected to the LSL grant that were continuing to be
    implemented in the districts. Protocols used in the case studies are
    shown in Appendix E, and case study summaries are shown in
    Appendix F. Site visits were conducted either by one person or by
    two-person teams between November 2006 and January 2007; each person
    or team visited one or two schools.

-   **Test scores.** Annual test score data on students' proficiency in
    reading/language arts were obtained from the National Longitudinal
    School-Level State Assessment Database. The same test results are
    used for accountability purposes under *NCLB*. These data are
    available for almost all states for multiple years and consist of
    school-level state assessment results for the tested grades. The
    exact contents of these files vary from one state to another,
    particularly in terms of which grade levels were tested, the number
    and nature of the tests used, the format of the test scores, and the
    years and subgroups for which summary scores were available. The
    most recent test score data available at the time of this report
    were for 2005. The data were therefore merged with the previous LSL
    evaluation to measure whether changes in school libraries were
    associated with changes in student test scores. Of the 701
    respondents to the 2004 survey, test scores were available for 553
    schools. Baseline data from the year before these grants (2002--03)
    were available for only 40 percent of the respondents.

The evaluation focused on the projects that received their grants in
2005, the fourth cohort of grantees. These grants were implemented in
the 2005--06 school year. Of the 85 grants awarded in the target year,
seven went to consortia of more than one district, and nine went to
districts that also had received an LSL grant in at least one prior
year.

In 2005--06, approximately 450 schools participated in the program. The
characteristics of these schools differed from schools in all districts
that were eligible for the program in that year and from U.S. schools
overall (Exhibit 1-2). The proportion of small schools in the grantee
schools (39 percent) was somewhat larger than the proportion among all
schools in eligible districts (34 percent) and all U.S. schools
(28 percent). Grantee schools also were somewhat more likely to be
elementary schools (72 percent) than were all schools in eligible
districts (55 percent) or, to a lesser degree, all U.S. schools
(61 percent). A greater proportion of the grantee schools (37 percent)
were located in cities compared with all U.S. schools (25 percent),
though roughly the same proportion of grantee schools were located in
cities (37 percent) as all schools in eligible districts (36 percent).
Because of the eligibility requirement that 20 percent or more families
in the LEA be below the poverty line, many suburban districts are not
eligible for LSL grants. A greater proportion of grantee schools were
located in the Northeast and Central regions of the country (33 percent
and 13 percent respectively) as were all schools in eligible districts
(8 percent and 9 percent respectively).

In this report, all differences discussed in the text are statistically
significant unless noted otherwise. For the reader's convenience,
results of statistical testing on differences between grantees and
nongrantees are shown in the exhibits, except in several of the more
complicated exhibits where multiple tests might be of interest.
District-level data were based on a census; consequently, tests of
statistical significance were not necessary.

**Exhibit 1-2**

**Percentage of Schools With Selected Characteristics, by Participation
Status, 2005--06 School Year**

  ----------------------- --------------- --------------- ---------------
  School Characteristic   Participating   All Schools in\ All U.S.
                          Schools in      Eligible        Schools
                          Grantee         Districts       
                          Districts                       

  **Enrollment size**                                     

  1--299                  39              34              28

  300--599                44              36              40

  600 or more             16              30              32

                                                          

  **School level**                                        

  Elementary              72              55              61

  Middle/junior high      10              16              18

  High                    17              29              21
  school/combined/other                                   

                                                          

  **Urbanicity**                                          

  City                    37              36              25

  Urban fringe            15              16              33

  Town                    14              16              10

  Rural                   35              33              32

                                                          

  **Region**                                              

  Northeast               33              8               18

  Southeast               20              27              21

  Central                 13              9               28

  West                    33              57              32
  ----------------------- --------------- --------------- ---------------

Exhibit reads: In the 2005--06 school year, 39 percent of the schools
participating in the LSL program had enrollments of between 1 and 299
students. Thirty-four percent of all schools in districts eligible to
participate in the LSL program and 28 percent of all U.S. schools had
enrollments of between 1 and 299 students.

*Note:* Percentages may not add to 100 because of rounding.

*Source:* U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education
Statistics, Common Core of Data (CCD), "Public Elementary/Secondary
School Universe Survey," 2003--04. Eligibility file supplied by the U.S.
Census Bureau; Grantee file supplied by the Improving Literacy Through
School Libraries Program.

**Chapter 2**

**Research on School Libraries and Literacy**

A number of state-level studies have found an association of certain
school library characteristics with increased student achievement. This
section provides a brief summary of the studies, focusing on general
evidence of the association of school libraries with student test scores
and on characteristics of school libraries that are associated with
higher student test scores. The analysis of such associations is
complicated, however, by some methodological issues that arise. These
issues are discussed before the research findings are presented.

[]{.mark}

One fundamental question concerning the validity of the research
findings is the question of whether a strong library support system is
the source of strong academic achievement or whether it is the
concurrent result of other factors that are also related to high student
achievement. For example, many studies (including many of the library
studies listed below) have found an association between poverty and
student test scores. Poverty also tends to be interrelated with the
level of resources at the school (including library resources), making
it difficult to separate such socioeconomic variables from school
variables; that is, it is difficult to know whether higher test scores
in a school are attributed to students' socioeconomic background, the
level of resources generally available at the school, or the specific
level of library resources at the school.

Thus, the library studies mentioned below typically have attempted to
statistically adjust for school and student characteristics such as
school district expenditures per pupil, teacher-pupil ratio, the average
years of experience of classroom teachers, average teacher salaries,
adult educational attainment, children in poverty, and racial or ethnic
demographics. Relationships between library characteristics and improved
test scores continued to hold after making such adjustments (Burgin and
Bracy 2003). The study reports varied in the extent to which they
provided information on the statistical methodology that was used, but
at a minimum, adjustments for poverty levels and other school or
community characteristics were included in studies in the following
eight states: Alaska, Pennsylvania, Colorado (two studies), Oregon,
Iowa, New Mexico, North Carolina and Texas.

The analysis of achievement in this report has a particular strength
because of the capacity to examine changes in library resources over
time, while the socioeconomic characteristics are generally less subject
to changes over time. Even the general level of resources at the school
is likely to change less dramatically than the library resources because
of the comparative size of the grants with respect to school libraries'
typical budgets.

[]{.mark}

Some studies have differentiated between direct and indirect
relationships with test scores. For example, Oregon found that
information resources and technology and library media center usage all
showed direct relationships with student test scores, while library
media staffing levels, staff activities and library media expenditures
showed indirect relationships.

Association of School Libraries With Student Test Scores

General results of state-level studies showing positive relationships
between library characteristics and student test scores are presented
below. The specific factors that were associated with improved test
scores are discussed later in this chapter.

**Alaska.** Test scores on the California Achievement Tests tended to be
higher if schools had librarians (especially full-time librarians) and,
regardless of staffing, if schools had higher amounts of staff time
devoted to delivering library and information literacy instruction to
students and providing in-service training to teachers and other staff
members (Burgin and Bracy 2003).

**Colorado.** Keith Curry Lance's first Colorado study found that the
size of the library (i.e., the number of staff members and the size of
the collection) explains between 5 percent and 15 percent of the
variation in reading scores (Lance, Welborn and Hamilton-Pennell 1992).
In a second study, he found increases in Colorado Student Assessment
Program reading scores of up to 18 percent in the fourth grade and up to
10 percent to 15 percent in the seventh grade (Lance, Rodney and
Hamilton-Pennell 2000a ).

**Florida.** Test scores were "more than 20 percent higher in elementary
schools where library media staffing is at 80 hours per week or more
than in schools with less than 60 hours per week" (Baumbach 2002, 4).

**Illinois.** Higher achievement on the state reading test was
associated with more hours of flexible library scheduling, higher
library staffing levels, more weekly hours of librarian staffing, more
time spent on selected library activities, larger and more current
library collections, more library computers connected to the Internet,
more money spent on libraries, and higher student usage of the library
(Illinois School Library Media Association 2005).

**Indiana.** Scores on the Indiana Statewide Testing for Educational
Progress were associated with the presence of a full-time library media
specialist who had been at the school for at least three years and who
excelled at information access and administrative services (Scholastic
Library Publishing 2008).

**Iowa.** Reading scores were higher at schools with strong library
media centers at all three levels (elementary, middle school and high
school) (Scholastic Library Publishing 2008).

**Massachusetts.** Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System scores
tended to be higher in schools with school library programs at all grade
levels (Scholastic Library Publishing 2008).

**Michigan.** Reading scores on the Michigan Educational Assessment
Program were related to the presence of a qualified school librarian and
use of a flexible schedule (Rodney, Lance and Hamilton-Pennell 2003).

**Minnesota.** Scores on the Minnesota Comprehensive Assessment were
related to the library budget for books and materials and to the
presence of a full-time media specialist (Baxter and Smalley 2003).

**Missouri.** Scores on the Missouri Assessment Program were positively
associated with the availability of school library program services
(Scholastic Library Publishing 2008).

**New Mexico.** Achievement scores were positively associated with
school library programs (Lance, Rodney and Hamilton-Pennell 2002).

**North Carolina.** Standardized reading and English scores tended to be
higher if school libraries were staffed and open more hours, had newer
books, spent more per 100 students on books and electronic access to
information, and subscribed to CD-ROM and online periodical services
(Burgin and Bracy 2003).

**Oregon.** Test scores on the Oregon state reading test tended to be
higher in grades 5, 8, and 10 if school libraries had characteristics
such as large print collections, more visits by students, and more staff
members (Burgin and Bracy 2003).

**Pennsylvania.** Using bivariate and partial correlations, Pennsylvania
System of School Assessment reading scores tended to increase as library
staffing increased, even after adjusting for school conditions such as
per pupil expenditures and the teacher-pupil ratio or for community
conditions such as poverty and low educational attainment (Lance, Rodney
and Hamilton-Pennell 2000b).

**Texas.** Texas Assessment of Academic Skills scores were higher in
schools with librarians and were related to library staffing levels,
collection sizes, librarian interaction with teachers and students, and
technology levels (Scholastic Library Publishing 2008).

**Wisconsin.** Student academic performance was positively associated
with staffing the school library with full-time certified library media
specialists and aides (Smith 2006).

Characteristics That Are Associated With Higher Student Test Scores

Many factors have been specifically associated with improved student
test scores (Exhibit 2-1). The exhibit below includes the factors that
were mentioned in multiple studies.

These individual factors may not be sufficient by themselves but,
rather, may need to be part of a larger package to influence student
achievement. For example, a study in Pennsylvania found that having a
large collection was important only when also combined with a schoolwide
initiative to integrate information literacy into the school's approach
to standards and curricula (Lance, Rodney and Hamilton-Pennell 2000b,
45). School characteristics also were interrelated with differences in
the relationship between school libraries and student test scores.
Lonsdale notes that "some research suggests that the impact of the
school library diminishes as students move through high school"
(Lonsdale 2003, 26).

**Exhibit 2-1\
Library Services and Characteristics Positively Associated With Student
Test Scores**

  ----------------------------- -----------------------------------------
  **Library                     **State**
  Service/Characteristic**      

  *Staffing/availability*       

  Number of hours of staffing   Colorado, Florida, Illinois, Indiana,
  at library                    Iowa, Massachusetts, North Carolina,
                                Oregon, Pennsylvania

  Having a full-time librarian  Alaska, Indiana, Massachusetts,
                                Minnesota, Texas, Wisconsin

  Scheduling to make libraries  Colorado, Illinois, Iowa, Michigan, North
  available                     Carolina

  Having a certified school     Florida, Michigan, Wisconsin
  library media specialist      

  *Professional                 
  development/training*         

  Instruction to students and   Alaska, Massachusetts, Oregon,
  teachers                      Pennsylvania

  *Collaboration/cooperation*   

  Cooperative relationships     Alaska
  with public libraries         

  Collaboration between library Colorado, Iowa, Oregon
  media specialists and         
  teachers                      

  *Electronic linkages and      
  technology*                   

  Facilities that reach the     Alaska, Florida
  Internet                      

  Networked linkages with       Colorado, Illinois, Oregon, Pennsylvania
  classrooms and other          
  instructional sites           

  Automated collections         Massachusetts

  *Collections and resources*   

  Print volumes per student     Colorado, Florida, Illinois, Iowa,
                                Massachusetts, Oregon, Pennsylvania,
                                Texas

  Periodical subscriptions per  Colorado, Oregon, Texas
  100 students                  

  Video collections per 100     Iowa, Texas
  students                      

  Audio materials               Iowa

  Electronic reference titles   Colorado
  per 100 students              

  Library media expenditures    Colorado, Massachusetts, North Carolina,
  per student                   Oregon, Pennsylvania, Texas

  Recency of copyright dates    Iowa, North Carolina

  *Usage*                       

  Usage of library (as measured Colorado, Florida, Illinois,
  by the number of visits to    Massachusetts, Oregon
  the library media center or   
  by a high number of books     
  checked out per student)      
  ----------------------------- -----------------------------------------

Exhibit reads: The number of hours of staffing at the library was
positively associated with student test scores in Colorado, Florida,
Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Massachusetts, North Carolina, Oregon and
Pennsylvania.

*Note:* This exhibit is a synthesis of all the state-level studies
discussed in this chapter. Citations are shown in the references on
p.79.

**Chapter 3**

**Program Implementation**

> Key Findings

-   Districts often reported selecting schools to participate in the
    grant based on various kinds of disadvantages at those schools such
    as lack of library resources, poverty level and those identified for
    improvement under *No Child Left Behind*.

-   Participation in the school selection process had increased for most
    staff members and had decreased for district school library
    coordinators since the first LSL evaluation.

-   In 2005--06, more than half (57 percent) of the program funds were
    spent on resources, including books. This level was a decrease from
    2003--04 when 68 percent of the funds were spent on resources.

-   After receiving the LSL grants, the grantees roughly tripled their
    expenditures for books and subscriptions as well as for computer
    hardware. By contrast, nongrantees showed little change in these
    categories.

The LSL program provides competitive grant awards to school districts.
In the 2004--05 and 2005--06 school years, about half of the districts
receiving LSL awards had enrollments of 2,000 or more students, and
almost half received grants of more than \$200,000 (Exhibit 3-1). About
half of the districts were located in rural areas, and most of the other
districts were in cities or towns.

Districts determine which schools will participate in the grant. This
chapter describes the basis used to make these decisions and the
personnel involved in making them. It also discusses the approach used
to distribute grant money to the schools and the personnel involved in
that decision. In addition, it describes how the grant money was spent,
other outside support for literacy and libraries, and how schools
allocate library funds.

**Exhibit 3-1**

**Characteristics of Districts Receiving LSL Grants, 2004--05 and
2005--06 School Years**

+-----------------+------------+------------+------------+------------+
| District        | 2004--05   |            | 2005--06   |            |
| Characteristic  |            |            |            |            |
+-----------------+------------+------------+------------+------------+
|                 | Number     | Percentage | Number     | Percentage |
+-----------------+------------+------------+------------+------------+
|                 |            |            |            |            |
+-----------------+------------+------------+------------+------------+
| Total           | 92         | 100        | 85         | 100        |
+-----------------+------------+------------+------------+------------+
|                 |            |            |            |            |
+-----------------+------------+------------+------------+------------+
| District        |            |            |            |            |
| enrollment size |            |            |            |            |
+-----------------+------------+------------+------------+------------+
| > Fewer than    | 20         | 22         | 15         | 18         |
| > 500           |            |            |            |            |
+-----------------+------------+------------+------------+------------+
| > 500--1,999    | 25         | 27         | 25         | 29         |
+-----------------+------------+------------+------------+------------+
| > 2,000 or more | 47         | 51         | 45         | 53         |
+-----------------+------------+------------+------------+------------+
|                 |            |            |            |            |
+-----------------+------------+------------+------------+------------+
| Urbanicity      |            |            |            |            |
+-----------------+------------+------------+------------+------------+
| > City          | 22         | 24         | 18         | 21         |
+-----------------+------------+------------+------------+------------+
| > Urban fringe  | 6          | 7          | 10         | 12         |
+-----------------+------------+------------+------------+------------+
| > Town          | 19         | 21         | 16         | 19         |
+-----------------+------------+------------+------------+------------+
| > Rural         | 45         | 49         | 41         | 48         |
+-----------------+------------+------------+------------+------------+
|                 |            |            |            |            |
+-----------------+------------+------------+------------+------------+
| Region          |            |            |            |            |
+-----------------+------------+------------+------------+------------+
| > Northeast     | 12         | 13         | 19         | 22         |
+-----------------+------------+------------+------------+------------+
| > Southeast     | 27         | 29         | 20         | 24         |
+-----------------+------------+------------+------------+------------+
| > Central       | 11         | 12         | 12         | 14         |
+-----------------+------------+------------+------------+------------+
| > West          | 42         | 46         | 34         | 40         |
+-----------------+------------+------------+------------+------------+
|                 |            |            |            |            |
+-----------------+------------+------------+------------+------------+
| Amount of grant |            |            |            |            |
+-----------------+------------+------------+------------+------------+
| > Up to         | 19         | 21         | 13         | 15         |
| > \$100,000     |            |            |            |            |
+-----------------+------------+------------+------------+------------+
| > \$101         | 31         | 34         | 28         | 33         |
| ,000--\$200,000 |            |            |            |            |
+-----------------+------------+------------+------------+------------+
| > More than     | 42         | 46         | 44         | 52         |
| > \$200,000     |            |            |            |            |
+-----------------+------------+------------+------------+------------+

Exhibit reads: In the 2004--05 school year, 20 districts receiving LSL
grants had a district enrollment of fewer than 500 students. Districts
of this size represented 22 percent of all districts receiving an LSL
grant that year.

*Note:* Percentages may not add to 100 because of rounding.

*Source:* U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education
Statistics, Common Core of Data (CCD), "Public Elementary/Secondary
School Universe Survey," 2003--04. Grantee data file supplied by the
Improving Literacy Through School Libraries Program.

How Districts Allocate Program Funds

Although the grants for the LSL program were awarded to districts, most
of the activities funded by the grants occurred at the school level.
Most districts indicated which schools they planned to serve as a part
of their grant applications, but they could make changes after the grant
was awarded.

Generally, the approaches used by districts to select schools for
participation in the grant have been about the same each year between
2003--04 and 2005--06 (Exhibits 3-2 and A-1). About half of the
districts served all schools in the district, an approach used by
84 percent of the districts with enrollments of less than 500 students.
Only high-poverty districts can participate in the LSL program, but
needs differ within districts. About a third of the districts selected
the neediest schools based on the lack of library resources. One change
since 2003--04 is that more districts have selected schools that are
considered needy on the basis of the poverty or were identified for
improvement under *No Child Left Behind*. Forty-two percent of school
districts in urban areas used this last approach compared with less than
one-fifth of districts in other types of communities. In all three years
examined, 14 percent of the districts receiving grant awards contained
only one school; consequently, they did not need to make any school
selection decisions.![](media/image6.wmf){width="3.825in"
height="4.304166666666666in"}

Methods used by districts to distribute grant money to schools, have
been about the same with minor variations from year to year. For
example, in 2003--04 and 2005--06, about a third of the districts gave
all schools an equal amount of grant funds, but only 18 percent of the
districts used this approach in 2004--05 (Exhibits 3-3, 3-4, and A-1).
In 2003--04, 8 percent of the districts did the purchasing at the
district level, while 16 percent used this approach in 2005--06.

![](media/image7.wmf){width="3.5701388888888888in"
height="2.202777777777778in"}

![](media/image8.wmf){width="3.775in" height="3.338888888888889in"}

Participation in the school selection process had increased for most
staff members and decreased for district school library coordinators
since the first LSL evaluation (Exhibits 3-5, A-2, A-3, and A-4). School
librarians were involved in the school selection decision in most
districts (84 percent), although the percentage had declined. Virtually
all (95 percent) of the districts involved school librarians in the
decisions for spending grant money, as had also been the case in the
first evaluation. Participation by reading specialists in spending
decisions increased from 45 percent to 60 percent of the districts.
Participation in the spending decisions also increased for reading
curriculum coordinators and parents, but decreased for district school
library coordinators and classroom teachers.

**Exhibit 3-5**

**Percentage of Districts Using Various Personnel to Decide Which
Schools to Serve\
and How Grant Funds Should Be Spent, 2005--06 and 2003--04 School
Years**

+----------------------------------+----------------------------------+---+
| **2005--06 school year**         | **2003--04 school year**         |   |
|                                  |                                  |   |
| ![](media/image9.w               | ![](media/image10.w              |   |
| mf){width="3.2423611111111112in" | mf){width="3.2423611111111112in" |   |
| height="2.214583333333333in"}    | height="2.214583333333333in"}    |   |
+----------------------------------+----------------------------------+---+

Exhibit reads: In the 2005--06 school year, school librarians were
involved in the decision with respect to which schools to serve in 84
percent of the districts. School librarians were involved in deciding
how grant funds should be spent in 95 percent of the districts.

*Source:* First and second evaluations, district performance report
questions 2 and 13.

![](media/image11.wmf){width="3.7840277777777778in"
height="2.1680555555555556in"}

Five types of activities can be funded under the LSL program. In
2005--06, more than half (57 percent) of the program funds were spent on
resources, including books. This level of funding was a decrease from
2003--04 when 68 percent of the funds were spent on resources (Exhibits
3-6, A-5, and A-6). Spending on advanced technology grew from 11 percent
in 2003--04 to 20 percent in 2005--06. Perhaps one reason for this
change is that in the earlier year, the LSL program cut technology
purchases from the budgets of many applications because other funding
sources were available, but that was not the case in the later year.

Other Outside Support for Literacy and Libraries

Funding for literacy programs in high-poverty districts is provided by
several other federal programs in addition to LSL. Some school libraries
also receive funding from nonfederal sources. In the evaluation, we
compared the extent to which grantees and nongrantees used these outside
funding sources.

![](media/image12.wmf){width="3.8229166666666665in"
height="2.613888888888889in"}

Significantly more LSL grantees than nongrantees participated in the
programs of Title I (86 percent versus 80 percent), Reading First (29
percent versus 19 percent), and 21st Century Community Learning Centers
(26 percent versus 17 percent) (Exhibit 3-7). There was also an increase
in LSL grantees participating in Reading First, from 15 percent in
2003--04 to 29 percent in 2005--06. Less than 10 percent of the LSL
grantees participated in Comprehensive School Reform or Early Reading
First.

Other possible sources of funding for school libraries include a state
allotment, not-for-profit groups and corporate donors. About half of the
grantees (50 percent) and nongrantees (53 percent) received funding from
a state allotment (Exhibit 3-7). Significantly more grantees (15
percent) than nongrantees (8 percent) received funding from a
not-for-profit group, while significantly fewer grantees (1 percent)
than nongrantees (5 percent) received funding from corporate donors.

![](media/image13.wmf){width="3.8229166666666665in"
height="2.613888888888889in"}

How Schools Allocate Funds

LSL school districts distributed \$18.1 million in grant funding in both
2004--05 and 2005--06. Roughly three-fourths of the funds were used to
acquire resources, including not only advanced technology such as new
computers and interactive whiteboards (20 percent in 2005--06) but also
books and other resources (57 percent in 2005--06) (Exhibits 3-9 and
A-6). In both years, the percentage spent on advanced technology was
well above that for 2003--04 (20--23 percent versus 11 percent). The
remaining funds were used for operating a library media center in
nonschool hours (8 percent--9 percent in both years), professional
development (4 percent--5 percent), linkage to the Internet and other
networks (2 percent--3 percent), and other uses (8 percent--12 percent).
Urban school districts had a somewhat different pattern from other
districts, putting less into advanced technology (6 percent versus
20 percent--25 percent among all other districts) and more into the
acquisition of other resources (73 percent versus 49 percent--52 percent
in towns and rural areas) (Exhibit A-5).

**Exhibit 3-9**

**Percentage of LSL Funds Spent by Districts,\
2005--06, 2004--05 and 2003--04 School Years**

![](media/image14.wmf){width="6.493055555555555in"
height="2.8777777777777778in"}

Exhibit reads: In the 2005--06 school year, districts spent 57 percent
of their LSL funds on resources, including books; 20 percent on advanced
technology; 8 percent on nonschool library hours; 5 percent on
professional development; 3 percent on linkage to Internet and other
networks; and 8 percent on other categories.

*Note:* Percentages may not add to 100 because of rounding.

*Source:* First and second evaluations, district performance report
question 12.

![](media/image15.wmf){width="3.827777777777778in"
height="3.402083333333333in"}

Looking only at acquisitions, school libraries tended to allocate the
greatest amount of their funds to materials such as books and
subscriptions and the next most to computer hardware (Exhibits 3-10 and
A-7). After receiving the LSL grants, the grantees roughly tripled the
amounts for books and subscriptions and for computer hardware. By
contrast, nongrantees showed little change in these categories. Among
the grantees, some of the greatest changes were among (a) small schools
(which quadrupled expenditures on books and subscriptions and made an
almost six-fold increase in computer hardware expenditures), (b) rural
schools (which almost quadrupled expenditures for books and
subscriptions and made a sevenfold increase in computer hardware
expenditures), and (c) schools with \$12 or less in expenditures per
student (which made an almost tenfold increase for books and
subscriptions and a tenfold increase on computer hardware). In the first
evaluation, when grants were smaller, grantees roughly doubled their
expenditures on books and subscriptions and on computer hardware. In
both evaluations, about 75 percent of grantees' expenditures on
materials were on books and 18 percent were on computer hardware.

![](media/image16.wmf){width="3.8291666666666666in"
height="2.763888888888889in"}

In 2005--06, library media centers devoted the major part of their
expenditures for materials to getting books: 80 percent of grantees'
expenditures and 69 percent of nongrantees' expenditures were for books
(Exhibits 3-11 and A-8). Because grantees also spent more total funds
than nongrantees, the difference between grantees and nongrantees was
larger in dollar terms, with grantees spending an average of \$24,000 on
books compared with \$5,800 among nongrantees. Among the grantees, rural
schools spent the lowest proportion on books (71 percent versus 82 to
87 percent among other districts).

In summary, since the first evaluation, the methods used by districts to
select schools for LSL grant participation and distribute grant money to
them have shown little change. Participation in the school selection
process had increased for most staffing categories but had decreased for
district school library coordinators, while participation by reading
specialists in spending decisions had increased.

Districts spent a smaller proportion of grant funds on resources,
including books and a greater proportion on advanced technology, since
the first evaluation. After receiving the LSL grants, the grantees
roughly tripled the amount of expenditures for books and subscriptions
and for computer hardware. By contrast, nongrantees showed little change
in these categories.

Significantly more grantees than nongrantees received funding from
not-for-profit groups and participated in the Title I, Reading First,
and 21st Century Community Learning Centers programs.

**Chapter 4**

**School-Level Changes Associated With the Program**

> Key Findings

-   Among those districts conducting needs assessments, grantees
    identified significantly more needs compared with nongrantees, and
    they were more apt to make changes as a result.

-   Before the grant, significantly fewer grantees than nongrantees
    considered their reading/English materials to be adequate or
    excellent. In contrast, during the grant year, significantly more
    grantees than nongrantees considered their overall reading/English
    literature, print materials and computer software to be adequate or
    excellent. The first evaluation found that overall, the grants
    seemed to compensate for grantees' earlier disadvantages and bring
    them to rough equality with the nongrantees whereas the second
    evaluation found that the grants enabled the grantees to surpass the
    nongrantees.

-   Before receiving the LSL grants, the grantees provided significantly
    fewer nonschool hours of access than nongrantees, but this
    difference was eliminated after receiving the grants.

-   Overall, grantees were more likely than nongrantees to have
    increased services by establishing new programs or expanding
    existing programs. Many of the increased services involved
    collaboration between library media staff members and classroom
    teachers and other school staff members.

-   In the first evaluation, school libraries receiving two successive
    LSL grants tended to be more disadvantaged than those receiving
    grants only in 2003--04. In contrast, in the second evaluation, the
    repeat grantees appear to have started in 2004--05 with fewer
    disadvantages than the other grantees. Despite being more advantaged
    than those receiving grants only in 2003--04, the repeat grantees
    were still disadvantaged compared with the nongrantees on some
    measures.

This chapter examines many aspects of a school library that might be
influenced by the program, including the conducting of a needs
assessment, resources available, extended hours, services offered,
staffing professional development, and collaboration with teachers.

Needs Assessment

The LSL legislation states that district applications must contain

a needs assessment relating to the need for school library media
improvement, based on the age and condition of school library media
resources, including book collections, access of school library media
centers to advanced technology, and the availability of well-trained,
professionally certified school library media specialists, in schools
served.[^7]

About half (51 percent) of the grantees and a third (34 percent) of the
nongrantees conducted a needs assessment within the last two years, a
significant difference (Exhibit A-9). These results were the same as
those found in the first LSL evaluation.

Grantee school libraries that conducted needs assessments within the
last two years identified significantly greater needs than nongrantees
in two of the five resource-related areas (Exhibits 4-1, A-9 and A-10).
Virtually all (95 percent) of the grantees identified the need for
more-up-to date materials compared with 85 percent of the nongrantees, a
significant difference. Significantly more grantees (92 percent) than
nongrantees (78 percent) made changes to increase the availability of
up-to-date materials in response to the needs assessment. More computer
equipment was the second most common resource-related need, but the
apparent differences between grantees and nongrantees are not
significant. Although more space was identified by significantly more
grantees (51 percent) than nongrantees (33 percent), the same percentage
(13 percent) made changes to address this need. Overall, the percentage
of grantees and nongrantees identifying various needs and making changes
as a result was about the same in the first and second evaluations.

**Exhibit 4-1**

**Percentage of School Libraries Identifying Various Resource-Related
Needs Through a Needs Assessment, and the Percentage That Made Changes,
by Grantee Status, Fall 2006**

![](media/image17.wmf){width="6.497916666666667in" height="4.94375in"}

Exhibit reads: Ninety-five percent of the grantees identified a need for
more up-to-date materials compared with 85 percent of the nongrantees.
Ninety-two percent of the grantees made changes to address this need
compared with 78 percent of the nongrantees. Both differences are
statistically significant (*p* ≤ .05).

*Note:* The asterisks (\*) indicate that there is a statistically
significant difference (i.e., *p*-value ≤ .05) between grantee and
nongrantee school libraries. Percentages are based on school libraries
that had done a needs assessment.

*Source:* Second evaluation, school library media center survey question
40.

Grantees were more likely than nongrantees to identify staffing-related
needs and to make necessary changes. For example, three-fourths
(75 percent) of the grantees identified the need for more hours in which
the library is open while about two-fifths (41 percent) of the
nongrantees identified this need, a significant difference (Exhibits
4-2, A-9 and A-10). Significantly more grantees (62 percent) than
nongrantees (24 percent) made a change to address this need. A similar
pattern was found for the need for more professional development and for
more time for planning with teachers. Overall, the data from the first
and second evaluations were similar, with grantees identifying greater
staffing-related needs and making changes to address the needs. However,
for grantees, the need for more professional development was
significantly greater in the second evaluation (75 percent) compared
with the first (60 percent).

**Exhibit 4-2**

**Percentage of School Libraries Identifying Various Staffing-Related
Needs Through a Needs Assessment, and the Percentage That Made Changes,
by Grantee Status, Fall 2006**

![](media/image18.wmf){width="6.497916666666667in" height="4.94375in"}

Exhibit reads: Seventy-five percent of the grantees identified a need
for more hours in which the library is open compared with 41 percent of
the nongrantees. Sixty-two percent of the grantees made a change to
address this need compared with 24 percent of the nongrantees. Both
differences are statistically significant (*p* ≤ .05).

*Note:* The asterisks (\*) indicate that there is a statistically
significant difference (i.e., *p*-value ≤ .05) between grantee and
nongrantee school libraries. Percentages are based on school libraries
that had done a needs assessment.

*Source:* Second evaluation, school library media center survey question
40.

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Examples of Needs Assessments, Drawn From the Case Studies**        |
|                                                                       |
| Several approaches used to determine needs                            |
|                                                                       |
| A rural district in an Eastern state used several approaches to       |
| determine library needs, which included reviewing student test score  |
| data, interviewing teachers, assessing library circulation rates, and |
| reviewing inventories to find possible gaps in the resources. They    |
| found that 60 percent of the library collection had an average        |
| copyright date before 1993, and approximately 50 percent was in poor  |
| condition. Gaps identified included books for nonreaders and emergent |
| readers as well as science and social studies resources.              |
|                                                                       |
| A very outdated library                                               |
|                                                                       |
| In a small Eastern town, a very experienced librarian who was new to  |
| the district was assigned to an extremely outdated library containing |
| four computers, a magazine collection beginning in the 1970s, and at  |
| least one book suggesting that people may travel to the moon some     |
| time in the future. This discovery became the impetus for her to take |
| a leading role in applying for an LSL grant.                          |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

Resources

Upgrading the resources in school libraries is a major purpose of the
LSL program. The types of resources that can be acquired under the
program include books and advanced technology. In addition, the program
facilitates linkages through the Internet and other resource-sharing
networks with other libraries. Because most LSL program funds have been
spent on resources, this evaluation compared grantee and nongrantee
school libraries with respect to the adequacy of their collections,
recency of holdings, kinds of equipment located in the school library,
availability of electronic services, computer access to catalogs of
other libraries, and cooperative activities with local public libraries.
Some comparisons were made between resources during the grant year
(2005--06) and the year before the grant (2004--05) as well as between
the first and second evaluations.

Collection

The first evaluation found that overall, the grants seemed to compensate
for grantees' earlier disadvantages and bring them to rough equality
with the nongrantees whereas the second evaluation found that the grants
enabled the grantees to surpass the nongrantees. In spring 2005, before
the grant, significantly fewer grantees considered their materials to be
adequate or excellent compared with nongrantees for all types of
materials, namely, overall reading/English literature, print materials,
video/audiovisual materials and computer software (Exhibits 4-3, A-11,
and A-12). In contrast, in spring 2006, during the grant year,
significantly more of the grantees considered their overall
reading/English literature, print materials and computer software to be
adequate or excellent compared with nongrantees.

**Exhibit 4-3**

**Percentage of School Libraries Reporting That Their Holdings Were
Excellent or Adequate in Supporting the Instructional Program in
English, by Type of Material and Grantee Status, Spring 2005 and 2006**

![](media/image19.wmf){width="6.4944444444444445in"
height="4.436111111111111in"}

Exhibit reads: In 2005, 66 percent of the grantees reported that their
overall reading/English literature holdings were excellent or adequate
compared with 78 percent of the nongrantees. This difference is
statistically significant (*p* ≤ .05). In 2006, 90 percent of the
grantees reported that their overall reading/English literature holdings
were excellent or adequate compared with 84 percent of the nongrantees.
This difference is not statistically significant.

*Note:* The asterisks (\*) indicate that there is a statistically
significant difference (i.e., *p*-value ≤ .05) between grantee and
nongrantee school libraries.

*Source:* Second evaluation, school library media center survey question
20.

Significantly more grantees considered their resources such as materials
with high interest and low vocabulary or multicultural materials to be
adequate or excellent in spring 2006, the grant year, compared with
their responses for spring 2005, the year before the grant (Exhibits
4-4, A-13, and A-14). In contrast, there were no significant differences
between the grant year and the year before the grant for the
nongrantees. (Further details about the responses can be found in
Exhibit A-13.)

**Exhibit 4-4**

**Percentage of School Libraries Reporting That Their Resources Were
Excellent or Adequate in the Grant Year and the Year Before the Grant
Year, by Type of Resource and Grantee Status,\
Spring 2006 and 2005**

+----------------------------------+----------------------------------+---+
| **Grantees**                     | **Nongrantees**                  |   |
|                                  |                                  |   |
| ![](media/image20.w              | ![](media/image21.w              |   |
| mf){width="3.2416666666666667in" | mf){width="3.2416666666666667in" |   |
| height="2.3381944444444445in"}   | height="2.3381944444444445in"}   |   |
+----------------------------------+----------------------------------+---+

Exhibit reads: In the grant year, 88 percent of the grantees reported
that their resources of picture books/easy readers were excellent or
adequate. In the year before the grant, 68 percent of the grantees
reported that these resources were excellent or adequate.

*Source:* Second evaluation, school library media center survey question
21.

Grantees reported purchasing more than double the number of books and
video materials that nongrantees purchased, both of which are
significant differences (Exhibit 4-5). Holdings at the end of the grant
year also differed for grantees and nongrantees after receipt of the
grant. Grantees had significantly fewer books and video materials than
the nongrantees (9,451 versus 11,892 for books) and (290 versus 392 for
video materials), even though these figures represented areas in which
they had made significantly more acquisitions than the nongrantees. In
contrast, in the first LSL evaluation, the holdings of the grantees and
nongrantees were similar at the end of the grant year.

**Exhibit 4-5**

**Mean Acquisitions and Holdings of Grantee and Nongrantee\
School Libraries, by Type of Material, 2005--06 School Year**

  -------------------------- ----------- ------------ ----------- ------------
  Type of Material           Acquired                 Total       
                             During                   Number      
                             2005--06                 Held\       
                                                      at the End  
                                                      of 2005--06 

                             Grantee     Nongrantee   Grantee     Nongrantee

  Books (all copies)         1,611\*     784          9,451       11,892\*

  Video materials (titles)   107\*       32           290         392\*

  CD-ROM titles              10\*        2            36\*        22

  Print or microform         10          10           17          24
  periodical subscriptions                                        

  Electronic subscriptions   1           2            1           3\*
  -------------------------- ----------- ------------ ----------- ------------

Exhibit reads: The average number of books acquired by grantees was
1,611 compared with 784 by nongrantees. This difference is statistically
significant (*p* ≤ .05).

*Note:* The asterisks (\*) indicate that there is a statistically
significant difference (i.e., *p*-value ≤ .05) between grantee and
nongrantee school libraries.

*Source:* Second evaluation, school library media center survey question
32.

Copyright year was used as an indication of the recency of the materials
in the school library. In fall 2006, after the grant had been
implemented, the average copyright year for the nonfiction collection
was 1993 for grantees and 1992 for nongrantees, a statistically
significant difference (Exhibit A-15). For fiction, the average
copyright year was 1992 for both grantees and nongrantees. This finding
contrasts with the findings of the first evaluation in which the
nongrantees had a more recent fiction collection and the average
copyright year of the nonfiction collection was the same for grantees
and nongrantees.

The age of atlases in both grantee and nongrantee school libraries was
similar in fall 2006, after the grant had been implemented (Exhibit
A-15). However, grantees had significantly more recent general
encyclopedias compared with nongrantees (Exhibits 4-6 and A-15). This
finding contrasts with the results of the first evaluation in which no
differences were found between grantees and nongrantees with respect to
the age of their most recent encyclopedia.

**Exhibit 4-6**

**Copyright Date of School Libraries' Most Recent General Encyclopedia,\
by Grantee Status, Fall 2006**

![](media/image22.wmf){width="2.977777777777778in"
height="2.079861111111111in"}
![](media/image23.wmf){width="1.9604166666666667in"
height="2.0708333333333333in"}

Exhibit reads: For 63 percent of the grantees, 2005 or 2006 was the
copyright date of their most recent general encyclopedia, compared with
45 percent of the nongrantees. This difference is statistically
significant (*p* ≤ .05).

*Note:* The asterisks (\*) indicate that there is a statistically
significant difference (i.e., *p*-value ≤ .05) between grantee and
nongrantee school libraries.

*Source:* Second evaluation, school library media center survey question
23.

The importance of various factors in selecting books to add to the
library's collection was generally quite similar to those in the first
LSL evaluation. In both evaluations significantly more grantees than
nongrantees (63 percent versus 52 percent in 2006) considered
consultation with a reading specialist to be very or somewhat important
(Exhibits 4-7, A-16, and A-17). Factors that were mentioned by at least
90 percent of the respondents as being very or somewhat important were
that books were chosen to strengthen a particular subject, that they
were selected in consultation with classroom teachers, and that they won
awards.

**Exhibit 4-7**

**Percentage of School Libraries Indicating That Various Factors Were
Very or Somewhat Important in Selecting Books to Add to Their
Collection, by Grantee Status, Fall 2006**

![](media/image24.wmf){width="6.4944444444444445in"
height="5.120138888888889in"}

Exhibit reads: Ninety-seven percent of grantees indicated that
strengthening a particular subject was a very (87 percent) or somewhat
(10 percent) important factor in selecting books to add to their
collection compared with 94 percent of nongrantees. This difference is
not statistically significant.

*Note:* The asterisks (\*) indicate that there is a statistically
significant difference (i.e., *p*-value ≤ .05) between grantee and
nongrantee school libraries. Details may not add to total because of
rounding.

*Source:* Second evaluation, school library media center survey question
25.

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Examples of Materials Purchased With Grant Money, Drawn From the    |
| Case Studies**                                                        |
|                                                                       |
| Large quantity of books purchased                                     |
|                                                                       |
| The purchase of a substantial number of books and other resources was |
| mentioned as a grant-related activity during all site visits. One     |
| district in a small Southern town hired two paraprofessionals to help |
| with processing the 12,000 books funded by the grant, an average of   |
| four books per student.                                               |
|                                                                       |
| Books aligned with state standards                                    |
|                                                                       |
| Selecting books that align with new state standards in English        |
| language arts, science, and social studies was a component of one LSL |
| project in a small Southern town. For example, a new standard         |
| involves acquiring knowledge of state authors and significant text    |
| created by them. Therefore, some biographies were purchased. Also,    |
| the primary school (grades pre-K--2) does not have textbooks for      |
| science or social studies. Under the LSL grant, the library purchased |
| six-packs of books that cover the standards in these subjects and are |
| used in guided reading lessons. The high school also targeted science |
| and social studies as areas needing updating.                         |
|                                                                       |
| Family literacy kits                                                  |
|                                                                       |
| In a very high-poverty district located on the fringe of a midsize    |
| city along the U.S.-Mexican border, a majority of the parents are     |
| first-generation Americans, have limited English proficiency, and     |
| come from cultures in which parents do not generally participate in   |
| the education process. Family literacy kits were purchased through    |
| the grant for each school so parents could improve their literacy     |
| skills along with their children. A two-day program was also provided |
| for parents to give them an overview of library resources,            |
| demonstrate how to obtain Internet access, and provide suggestions to |
| them for reading to their children.                                   |
|                                                                       |
| Materials targeted to a particular content area                       |
|                                                                       |
| Strengthening reading literacy through the science curriculum was an  |
| objective of a high school LSL grant program in a mid-size city in    |
| the south central part of the United States. In addition to new       |
| science materials, the district purchased science fiction novels to   |
| support a project activity of having students read both a fiction and |
| a nonfiction book on a particular topic and compare them. Also as     |
| part of the grant, the district purchased a magazine subscription     |
| service and database that contains full text magazine articles,       |
| including medical articles. Before the grant, the science teachers    |
| were unaware of these resources and were pleased to be able to access |
| current information.                                                  |
|                                                                       |
| Software programs                                                     |
|                                                                       |
| A Northeastern cooperative\* with six rural districts participating   |
| in the LSL program purchased a variety of software programs under the |
| grant. They included interactive books that can read words from the   |
| pages to the reader when the word is touched with a stylus. Drawings  |
| in the background are also interactive when touched with the stylus.  |
|                                                                       |
| \*A cooperative is a voluntary association of school districts who    |
| work together across a geographic area to provide educational         |
| services more economically than any district could offer by itself.   |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

Technology and Internal and External Linkages

The kinds of services school libraries can provide are affected by the
types of technological equipment available to them. There were no
significant differences between grantees and nongrantees in the
availability of various kinds of equipment. More than 90 percent of the
school libraries had an automated circulation system. About 80 percent
had video laser disk or DVDs, a significant increase from about
60 percent for both grantees and nongrantees found in the first
evaluation.

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Example of Technological Equipment Purchased With Grant Money,      |
| Drawn From the Case Studies**                                         |
|                                                                       |
| A cooperative in a rural area of the Northeast purchased a sizable    |
| amount of technological equipment under the LSL grant. All six        |
| participating elementary schools, which were up to 100 miles apart,   |
| received the same equipment, including video-conferencing equipment.  |
| This equipment has enabled the students to conduct virtual field      |
| trips and do book studies together, although they are located far     |
| apart. Before the LSL grant, the cooperative had done a broadband     |
| project, so a connection was already in place.                        |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

![](media/image25.wmf){width="3.71875in" height="2.542361111111111in"}

The percentages of grantees and nongrantees that do not have automated
catalog, electronic full-text periodicals, and CD-ROMs were about the
same and changed little from the first evaluation (Exhibit 4-8 and
A-18). For both grantees and nongrantees, fewer than 10 percent of
school libraries do not have e-mail access and Internet access.

Significantly more grantees than nongrantees provided Internet access,
e-mail and automated catalog services through a network outside of the
library by means of a buildingwide LAN or a district WAN (Exhibits 4-9,
4-10, A-18 and A-19). The provision of automated catalog services and
CD-ROMs through networks involving locations outside the library had
significantly increased for grantees, but not for nongrantees since the
first evaluation. More than 80 percent of grantees and nongrantees
provide Internet access and e-mail through outside networks.

![](media/image26.wmf){width="3.71875in" height="2.542361111111111in"}

**Exhibit 4-10**

**Most Frequent Approach Used by Grantee and Nongrantee\
Schools to Provide Various Electronic Services, by Type of Service, Fall
2006**

  -------------------------------- ------------------ ------------ ------------
  Electronic Service               Most Frequent      Percentage   
                                   Approach^a^ Used   of Schools\  
                                   to Provide the     Using the    
                                   Service            Approach     

                                                      Grantee      Nongrantee

                                                                   

  E-mail                           District WAN       83\*         76

  Internet access                  District WAN       81\*         73

  Electronic full-text periodicals District WAN       49           50

  CD-ROMs                          Stand-alone        43\*         35
                                   computer                        

  Automated catalogs               District WAN       46           40
  -------------------------------- ------------------ ------------ ------------

Exhibit reads: District WAN was used by 83 percent of grantees, compared
with 76 percent of nongrantees. This difference is statistically
significant (*p* ≤ .05).

*Note:* The asterisks (\*) indicate that there is a statistically
significant difference (i.e., *p-*value ≤ .05) between grantee and
nongrantee school libraries. WAN = wide area network.

^a^The most frequent approach was the same for grantee and nongrantee
schools.

*Source:* Second evaluation, school library media center survey question
27.

One way in which school libraries can be linked to other resources is by
computer access to the catalogs of other libraries. In fall 2006, after
the grant had been implemented, significantly more grantee than
nongrantee school libraries had computer access to the catalogs of all
other types of libraries (Exhibits 4-11 and A-20). The percentage of
grantees with computer access to the public library showed a significant
decrease from the first evaluation (from 73 percent to 64 percent).

![](media/image27.wmf){width="3.71875in" height="2.542361111111111in"}

School libraries are also linked to public libraries through the
conducting of cooperative activities. In fall 2006, 59 percent of the
grantee school libraries had participated in some cooperative activity
with the local public library (Exhibit A-21), but that was a significant
decrease from the first evaluation in which 68 percent of the grantees
were engaged in these activities. However, as in the first evaluation,
grantees were more significantly likely than nongrantee to participate
(59 percent versus 51 percent).

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Example of Linkages Established, Drawn From the Case Studies**      |
|                                                                       |
| Twelve Internet-connected desktop computers for use by students and   |
| teachers were installed as part of the LSL grant in a small Eastern   |
| town. Additional computers have been purchased since completion of    |
| the grant. Each library now has about 25 Internet-connected units, so |
| an entire class can work on them at the same time. Also under the     |
| grant, the middle-school card catalogs were put online and links were |
| established to the local public library and the state university      |
| library.                                                              |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

The percentages of grantee and nongrantee school libraries engaging in
various types of cooperative activities were about the same, and they
were generally the same as the first evaluation (Exhibits 4-12 and
A-21). The exceptions were the significant decline (from 56 to 47
percent) in the percentage of grantees informing the public library of
curriculum or upcoming homework needs and the decline (from 53 to 39
percent) in the percentage of grantees working with the public library
to plan a summer reading program.

**Exhibit 4-12**

**Percentage of School Libraries That Participated in Various
Cooperative Activities With\
Local Public Libraries, by Grantee Status, Fall 2006 and 2004**

+----------------------------------+----------------------------------+---+
| **Fall 2006**                    | **Fall 2004**                    |   |
|                                  |                                  |   |
| ![](media/image28.w              | ![](media/image29.w              |   |
| mf){width="3.2423611111111112in" | mf){width="3.2423611111111112in" |   |
| height="2.214583333333333in"}    | height="2.214583333333333in"}    |   |
+----------------------------------+----------------------------------+---+

Exhibit reads: Seventy-two percent of grantee school libraries borrowed
materials for classroom teachers from the local public library compared
with 68 percent of nongrantee school libraries. This difference is not
statistically significant.

*Source:* First evaluation, school library media center survey questions
29 and 30; second evaluation, school library media center survey
questions 30 and 31

Involvement of Students

One of the primary emphases of the LSL grants is to increase the number
of hours in which school libraries are open, with the intention of
increasing access to the libraries. Before receiving the grants, the LSL
grantees on average were open for fewer hours during a typical full week
than nongrantees (31.5 versus 34.0), but this difference was largely
eliminated after receiving the grants (34.3 versus 34.8) (Exhibits 4-13
and A-22). After receiving the grant, grantees offered significantly
more days of summer access (7.7 versus 6.4) compared with nongrantees, a
reversal from the relationship before receiving LSL funding (2.9 versus
6.8) (Exhibit 4-14). Among the grantees, the mean number of hours was
lower if the schools spent \$12 or less per student on libraries and if
the libraries had 1.25 FTE staff members or fewer, both before and after
receiving the grants. Findings from the first evaluation were similar to
these results.![](media/image30.wmf){width="3.7111111111111112in"
height="2.678472222222222in"}

![](media/image31.wmf){width="3.7111111111111112in"
height="2.678472222222222in"}

A different way of looking at library availability is whether the school
libraries were open during nonschool hours during the school year. Here
the grantees and nongrantees showed very different patterns (Exhibits
4-15 and A-23). The nongrantees started in spring 2005 with 54 percent
of schools offering access, but showed an insignificant change the next
year at 56 percent. The grantees started with lower levels of access in
2005 (39 percent), but their increase in 2006 was sufficiently large to
give them higher levels of access than the nongrantees (72 percent
versus 56 percent).[^8]

![](media/image32.wmf){width="3.7118055555555554in"
height="2.8270833333333334in"}

Before receiving the LSL grants, the grantees provided significantly
fewer nonschool hours of access per week than nongrantees (3.6 versus
6.7), but this difference was eliminated after receiving the grants (6.8
versus 6.9) (Exhibit 4-16). On average, grantees increased the mean
number of nonschool hours of access from 3.6 to 6.8 (a 91 percent
increase), while nongrantees showed negligible change from 6.7 to 6.9.

![](media/image33.wmf){width="3.7125in" height="2.6791666666666667in"}

Both in 2005 and 2006, the primary times of offering nonschool hours of
access were after school and before school (Exhibit 4-17). Grantees
started with fewer hours of access in 2005 (1.4 hours per week before
school and 2.1 after school for grantees compared with 2.5 and 4.1 hours
for nongrantees), but were relatively similar to nongrantees in 2006
(1.9 hours per week before school and 4.3 hours after school for
grantees compared with 2.4 and 4.4 hours for nongrantees).

![](media/image34.wmf){width="3.7125in" height="2.6791666666666667in"}

When schools opened libraries for extended hours, close to all
(90 percent) were open for loaning books, 33 percent were open for
specific programs such as offering tutorials on search techniques,
13 percent held book clubs, and 59 percent used the library for other
purposes (Exhibit A-24). Grantees were somewhat more likely than
nongrantees to offer specific programs such as tutorials (43 percent
versus 32 percent).

> **Example of Extended Hours, Drawn From the Case Studies**
>
> As part of the LSL grant, each school library in a rural district in
> the East was open approximately 2.5 hours per week for extended hours
> either before or after school. During these extended hours, some
> students conducted research using the resources available to help them
> to complete classroom assignments or meet their own interests. Others
> received additional instruction on an early reading workstation. Also,
> many parents were recruited to be reading volunteers, who either read
> to the students or had the students read to them. However, extended
> hours benefit students who are driven to school more than those who
> rely on the bus.
>
> Once a month, each library was open for four hours in the evening for
> family reading night, an activity done two or three times a semester
> since completion of the grant. For approximately 20 hours in the
> summer, the libraries were open for Camp Read-a-Lot with planned
> activities targeting low-achieving and emergent readers.

School libraries often faced barriers in extending their hours, with
between 51 and 73 percent identifying each of four factors as either
major or moderate barriers: availability of parents (73 percent of
nongrantees and 67 percent of grantees), availability of library staff
(67 percent for both nongrantees and grantees), transportation for
students (71 percent of nongrantees and 62 percent of grantees), and
transportation for parents (57 percent of nongrantees and 51 percent of
grantees) (Exhibits 4-18, A-25 and A-26). Safety concerns were less
frequently noted as major or moderate barriers, but still were barriers
for roughly a fourth of the schools (24 percent of nongrantees and
27 percent of grantees). As a rule, the differences between grantees and
nongrantees were small, as were the differences between different
subgroups of grantees. However, the availability of library staff at
grantee schools was less likely to be a major barrier at high schools
than at elementary or middle schools (30 percent versus
44 percent--45 percent) and at large schools than at small schools
(33 percent versus 46 percent).
![](media/image35.wmf){width="3.7111111111111112in"
height="2.678472222222222in"}

To the extent that libraries increased the hours they were open, one
might expect that student usage of the libraries would increase---for
example, in the number of students using the libraries in a typical week
or in the number of materials that were checked out. As in the first
evaluation, grantees showed an increase in number of visits per week but
no significant change in the number of materials checked out (Exhibits
4-19 and A-27). No data were collected on why the number of materials
checked out did not change, but possible reasons are (a) that students
were using other books or using books in the library and not checking
them out or (b) that there was a limit on the number of books students
could check out at one time. Nongrantees showed no change in number of
visits per week. As a rule, the changes were small, so differences
between different categories of grantees were statistically
insignificant. However, a few categories showed increases of 25 percent
or more in number of visits to the library in a typical week: schools
located in cities (25 percent), schools where 50 percent or more of the
students were eligible for free or reduced-price lunch (25 percent),
schools with library expenditures per student of \$12 or less
(33 percent), and schools with 1.25 or fewer FTE staff members in the
library (27 percent).

**Exhibit 4-19**

**Mean Usage of Library Resources per Student,\
by Grantee Status, Spring 2006 and 2005**

  ----------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------
  ![](media/image36.wmf){width="2.9993055555555554in"   ![](media/image37.wmf){width="3.001388888888889in"
  height="2.1631944444444446in"}                        height="2.1659722222222224in"}

  ----------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------

Exhibit reads: In a typical full week in 2006, students used grantee
school libraries an average of 1.4 times, compared with 1.2 times for
nongrantees. This difference is statistically significant (*p* ≤ .05).

*Note:* The asterisks (\*) indicate that there is a statistically
significant difference (i.e., *p*-value ≤ .05) between grantee and
nongrantee school libraries.

*Source:* Second evaluation, school library media center survey
questions 1, 2, and 3.

Services Offered

One of the most common tasks for school libraries, whether grantees or
nongrantees, was to provide reference assistance: 76 percent to
78 percent reported providing such assistance to students on a daily
basis, and 53 percent to 57 percent reported providing it to teachers on
a daily basis (Exhibits 4-20, A-28 and A-29). Providing reference
assistance to administrators was less common, but still 69 percent to
70 percent reported providing it monthly or more often. Grantees and
nongrantees differed in three areas. First, grantees were more likely to
work on a monthly basis with the principal or teachers on curriculum
issues (42 percent versus 29 percent), the only area where grantees more
frequently offered a service than nongrantees in the first evaluation
study. Second, grantees were more likely to participate in grade-level,
department or team meetings (52 percent versus 41 percent). This
difference is new (grantees and nongrantees were tied at 49 percent in
the last study), but the change is attributed to a decline in providing
services among nongrantees rather than to new behavior among the
grantees. Still, being a grantee was associated with providing a higher
level of service. Third, grantees were more likely than nongrantees to
coordinate training programs about integrating educational technology
into the curriculum for teachers and other staff members (13 percent
versus 7 percent). Grantees were less likely to provide frequent
services at small schools than at large schools (e.g., 73 percent versus
89 percent for reference assistance to students, 49 percent versus
69 percent on providing reference assistance to teachers, and 30 percent
versus 53 percent on assisting with research projects).

**Exhibit 4-20**

**Percentage of School Libraries Offering Selected Services on a Daily
or Monthly Basis,\
by Grantee Status, 2005--06 School Year**

![](media/image38.wmf){width="6.4944444444444445in"
height="4.436111111111111in"}

Exhibit reads: Seventy-six percent of grantees provided reference
assistance to students on a daily basis, compared with 78 percent of
nongrantees. This difference is not statistically significant.

*Note:* The asterisks (\*) indicate that there is a statistically
significant difference (i.e., *p*-value ≤ .05) between grantee and
nongrantee school libraries.

*Source:* Second evaluation, school library media center survey question
10.

Overall, grantees were more likely to have increased services (i.e., by
establishing new programs or expanding existing programs) than
nongrantees (Exhibits 4-21, A-30, A-31 and A-32). For example, they were
more likely to have increased services to assist with research projects
(42 percent versus 24 percent), work on curriculum issues (40 percent
versus 23 percent), and participate in team meetings (36 percent versus
23 percent). The same was true of services specifically related to
reading/English (Exhibit 4-22). For example, grantees were more likely
to have increased services concerning selecting resources (49 percent
versus 33 percent), curriculum development (32 percent versus
20 percent), family literacy nights (38 percent versus 13 percent), and
after-school programs with library orientation (34 percent versus
8 percent). In the first evaluation, grantees were also more likely than
nongrantees to have increased services.

![](media/image39.wmf){width="3.7111111111111112in"
height="2.678472222222222in"}

**Exhibit 4-22\
Percentage of School Libraries Providing New or Expanded Programs
Relating to Reading or English in 2005--06, by Grantee Status**

![](media/image40.wmf){width="3.520138888888889in"
height="2.545138888888889in"}

Exhibit reads: Forty-nine percent of grantees provided new or expanded
services in selecting reading or English resources with classroom
teachers in the 2005--06 school year, compared with 33 percent of
nongrantees. This difference is statistically significant\
(*p* ≤ .05).

*Note:* The asterisks (\*) indicate that there is a statistically
significant difference (i.e., *p*-value ≤ .05) between grantee and
nongrantee school libraries.

*Source:* Second evaluation, school library media center survey question
15.

**Examples of Services Provided Under the LSL Grant, Drawn From the Case
Studies**

Information problem solving

Librarians and classroom teachers have jointly implemented an
information problem-solving model as a part of one LSL grant in a small
Eastern town. In one activity, an eighth grade science teacher asked the
class to write a question they

wanted to answer. Then they went to the library to find the answer,
using a minimum of three sources including at least one Internet source.
The librarian and classroom teacher helped students who were having
difficulty. Students would later write a summary of what they had
learned.

Early reading

In one rural district in the East with 15 participating elementary
schools, an early reading workstation was purchased for each school to
address the identified need for materials for nonreaders. About 10
students in each school were targeted for 15--20 minutes of
individualized instruction per day. Students who were nonreaders but
were not considered to be special education students were selected.
Initially, the students worked with tutors, but some became
self-directed and worked on their own. According to the district,
90 percent of the students in this program had attained grade-level
reading. For some students, this achievement represented an increase of
two grade levels. Consequently, the district plans to add more
workstations.

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Examples of Services Provided Under the LSL Grant, Drawn From the   |
| Case Studies (continued)**                                            |
|                                                                       |
| Young Authors Program                                                 |
|                                                                       |
| The LSL grant provided a librarian in a small rural district in the   |
| north central part of the United States with the resources to         |
| establish a Young Authors Program in which students wrote and         |
| illustrated their own books. Older students used PowerPoint to        |
| prepare their books. This program was said to foster interest in      |
| reading as well as writing skills and creativity.                     |
|                                                                       |
| Reader's Theatre                                                      |
|                                                                       |
| In a small Southern town, 40 high school students performed Reader's  |
| Theaters for approximately 240 primary school students. The materials |
| for this activity were multiple copies of plays written on the second |
| grade level. Each high school student read a part in the play, and    |
| one or two students served as narrators. The younger students could   |
| read the play on their own at a later date. The plays were selected   |
| by the primary school's media specialist and purchased with LSL       |
| funds.                                                                |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

![](media/image41.wmf){width="3.7125in" height="2.6791666666666667in"}

Staffing of School Libraries

Nongrantee school libraries had a mean of 1.2 full-time staff members
and 0.5 paid part-time staff members in both spring 2005 and 2006
(Exhibits 4-23 and A-33). Grantees had significantly fewer full-time
staff members than nongrantees (1.0 versus 1.2 in both years) and no
statistically significant difference in the number of part-time staff
members in spring 2005 and 2006. Thus, despite the focus on extending
the number of hours that school libraries were open, the LSL grants do
not appear to have been used to increase paid staffing.[^9] One reason
might be that districts are reluctant to hire new staff members for just
the one year of the grant.

There was a small but statistically significant decrease among grantees
in the number of pupils per librarian (from 391.4 to 371.5) (Exhibits
4-24 and A-33). Grantees in rural districts had fewer pupils per
librarian than those in cities in 2005 (293.4 versus 478.2), and also
showed a decline in that ratio in 2006 (to 247.6), while cities showed
essentially no change (with means of 478.2 in 2005 and 474.1 in 2006).
Also, grantees at small schools had fewer pupils per librarian than
those in large schools in 2005 (261.4 versus 728.8), and further showed
a small decline in 2006 (i.e., from 261.4 to 239.9), while large schools
showed little change (from 728.8 to 717.6, which was not statistically
significant). ![](media/image42.wmf){width="3.7125in"
height="2.6791666666666667in"}

Professional Development Related to School Libraries

The LSL legislation states that program funds may be used to "provide
professional development ... for school library media specialists and
activities that foster increased collaboration between school library
media specialists, teachers, and administrators."[^10] Professional
development funded by LSL is limited to staff members serving
pre-kindergarten through grade 3. Because professional development is
specifically mentioned in the LSL legislation, one might expect that
more grantee staff members would participate in professional development
related to school libraries compared with nongrantee staff members.

About three-fourths of both grantees and nongrantees reported staff
members participating in professional development related to school
libraries during the grant year, but the mean number of staff members
participating was greater for the grantees. About twice as many
classroom teachers, paraprofessionals and reading specialists in grantee
schools received professional development related to school libraries
compared with nongrantee staff members (Exhibit 4-25). When compared
with the first LSL evaluation, the mean number of both grantee and
nongrantee staff members receiving professional development decreased in
2005--06, especially for classroom teachers (from 14.1 to 9.5 for
grantees and from 11.1 to 4.7 for nongrantees).

**Exhibit 4-25**

**Mean Number of Staff Members Participating in Professional
Development, by Grantee Status Year, 2005--06 and 2003--04 School
Years**

+----------------------------------+----------------------------------+---+
| **Grantees**                     | **Nongrantees**                  |   |
|                                  |                                  |   |
| ![](media/image43.w              | ![](media/image44.w              |   |
| mf){width="3.2402777777777776in" | mf){width="3.2402777777777776in" |   |
| height="2.629166666666667in"}    | height="2.629166666666667in"}    |   |
+----------------------------------+----------------------------------+---+

Exhibit reads: In the 2005--06 school year, an average of 0.4 principals
in grantee schools participated in professional development. In the
2003--04 school year, an average of 0.8 principals in grantee schools
participated.

*Source:* Second evaluation, school library media center survey question
18; first evaluation, school library media center survey question 17.

Although LSL professional development is directed at the elementary
level, the mean number of staff members participating in professional
development related to school libraries at the elementary level was
about the same as the mean number for all schools. One exception was the
mean number of classroom teachers participating in professional
development, which was significantly lower for elementary schools than
for all schools (8.3 versus 9.5). One possible reason for the high
participation by staff members at all grade levels is that some of the
professional development may have been funded by sources other than LSL;
the survey did not ask about funding
sources.![](media/image45.wmf){width="3.75625in"
height="2.7111111111111112in"}

During the grant year, the topics covered in the professional
development of grantees and nongrantees were generally the same,
although professional development related to teaching children to read
was provided by more grantees (60 percent) than nongrantees (47 percent)
(Exhibits 4-26 and A-34). However, a different picture emerges when one
examines professional development provided during the year before the
grant. The grantees covered all the topics significantly less frequently
in the year before the grant than they did during the grant year
(Exhibits 4-27 and A-35). In contrast, nongrantees covered the various
topics to the same extent that they did during the grant year. There
were some differences among subgroups of grantees. Those in cities were
less likely than grantees in the urban fringe to offer professional
development in integrating technology into the curriculum (79 percent
compared with 96 percent).

**Exhibit 4-27**

**Percentage of School Libraries Covering Selected Topics in
Professional Development Activities, by Grantee Status, 2005--06 and
2004--05 School Years**

+----------------------------------+----------------------------------+---+
| **Grantees**                     | **Nongrantees**                  |   |
|                                  |                                  |   |
| ![](media/image46.w              | ![](media/image47.w              |   |
| mf){width="3.2416666666666667in" | mf){width="3.2416666666666667in" |   |
| height="2.3381944444444445in"}   | height="2.3381944444444445in"}   |   |
+----------------------------------+----------------------------------+---+

Exhibit reads: In the 2005--06 school year, the grant year, 89 percent
of grantee school libraries covered the topic of learning to use online
resources in professional development activities. In the 2004--05 school
year, the year before the grant, 66 percent of grantee school libraries
covered this topic.

*Source:* Second evaluation, school library media center survey question
19.

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Examples of Professional Development, Drawn From the Case Studies** |
|                                                                       |
| Special day to demonstrate new equipment                              |
|                                                                       |
| A rural cooperative in the Northeast purchased a sizable amount of    |
| technological equipment. Each library media specialist in the         |
| participating districts held a professional development day to        |
| demonstrate the equipment to classroom teachers.                      |
|                                                                       |
| Professional development team                                         |
|                                                                       |
| In a mid-size city in the south central part of the United States,    |
| each school established a professional development team during the    |
| first month of the LSL project. The team worked with other committees |
| to identify training needs, particularly because the libraries had    |
| acquired additional updated materials and resources. For example,     |
| both classroom teachers and librarians were trained on software and   |
| database usage. At the elementary level, the professional development |
| teams included one teacher from each grade level, the librarian,      |
| library aide, and one special education teacher. At the high-school   |
| level, one representative from each content area also was included on |
| the teams. School principals participated as honorary members.        |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

Collaboration With Teachers

![](media/image48.wmf){width="3.716666666666667in"
height="2.3868055555555556in"}

Collaboration between school librarians and teachers is encouraged by
the LSL program. Literacy is a focus of the program and reading/language
arts is the curriculum area in which collaboration occurred most often
on a weekly basis (Exhibits 4-28, A-36, and A-37). However, there was no
significant difference between grantees and nongrantees in the amount of
collaboration in reading/language arts or other subject areas except
science. Both grantees and nongrantees had significantly more
collaboration for reading/language arts than for other curriculum areas.
For all subject areas, grantees with school enrollments of more than 700
students had more collaboration than smaller grantee schools.

The curriculum areas in which collaboration between school library staff
members and classroom teachers occurred most frequently were
reading/language arts and English, areas of particular emphasis in the
LSL program. Types of services school libraries might provide to
classroom teaches in reading or English are selecting resources,
curriculum development, collaborative teaching and collaborative
evaluation. Only one of these services, collaborative teaching, was done
significantly more frequently by grantees than nongrantees (Exhibits
4-29, A-38, and A-39). All these services were provided more frequently
by grantees at the middle school/junior high level than at the
elementary level.

![](media/image49.wmf){width="3.716666666666667in"
height="2.3868055555555556in"}

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Examples of Collaboration Between Librarians and Classroom          |
| Teachers, Drawn\                                                      |
| From the Case Studies**                                               |
|                                                                       |
| Fostering collaboration through joint attendance at professional      |
| development programs                                                  |
|                                                                       |
| In a rural cooperative in the north central region of the United      |
| States, a mechanism used for fostering collaboration was having the   |
| librarians and teachers attend professional development programs      |
| together to see where they could work together. Subsequently,         |
| librarians have co-taught research units and genre studies.           |
|                                                                       |
| Joint decision making with respect to purchases leads to further      |
| collaboration                                                         |
|                                                                       |
| In a small rural district in the north central part of the United     |
| States, the librarian consulted with classroom teachers about which   |
| books and other materials to purchase. This process has increased the |
| collaboration between teachers and librarians on a variety of         |
| activities, including lesson planning and teaching information and    |
| research skills. Finding time for collaboration was a challenge at    |
| first. The teachers did not want to miss instructional time and       |
| preferred not to use substitutes to cover their classes. Ultimately,  |
| staff members donated their personal and planning time. The           |
| collaboration established under the grant has been continued beyond   |
| the grant year and in some cases has strengthened with time. The      |
| initial goal was to have eight collaborative projects, but the        |
| district exceeded this goal by having 11.                             |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

Information skills instruction, or information literacy, involves the
development of concepts, skills and attitudes that foster independent,
effective and lifelong use of information. This instruction can be
provided as a separate course, integrated into the curriculum or
provided as a combination of these two approaches. In 2005--06, more
grantees than nongrantees used a combination of approaches (42 percent
versus 34 percent) (Exhibits 4-30 and A-40). Grantees used this approach
more frequently at the middle-school/junior-high and high-school levels
than at the elementary level. In 2005--06, 47 percent of the grantees
used integration into the curriculum as the only approach for teaching
information skills, an increase from 2003--04 when 37 percent used this
approach.

**Exhibit 4-30**

**Approaches Used to Provide Instruction in Information Skills, by
Grantee Status,\
2005--06 School Year**

![](media/image50.wmf){width="2.8784722222222223in"
height="2.057638888888889in"}![](media/image51.wmf){width="1.7618055555555556in"
height="2.0618055555555554in"}

Exhibit reads: Forty-two percent of grantees provided instruction in
information skills both as a separate course and integrated into the
curriculum, compared with 34 percent of nongrantees. This difference is
statistically significant (*p* ≤ .05).

*Note:* The asterisk (\*) indicates that there is a statistically
significant difference (i.e., *p*-value ≤ .05) between grantee and
nongrantee school libraries.

*Source:* Second evaluation, school library media center survey question
13.

Similarly, the personnel involved in providing the instruction on
information skills were the same for grantees and nongrantees in
2005--06 (Exhibit A-40). This representation was a change from 2003--04
for the grantees when 87 percent of the library media specialists were
involved in this instruction compared with 78 percent in 2005--06.

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Example of Introducing Collaborative Teaching and Flexible          |
| Scheduling,\                                                          |
| Drawn From the Case Studies**                                         |
|                                                                       |
| In one small rural district in the north central part of the United   |
| States, an LSL program goal was to introduce flexible library         |
| scheduling and collaborative teaching. The school librarian began     |
| with two teachers to demonstrate how it works. The practice was       |
| successful in teaching specific units such as how to write a research |
| paper, which was conducted with the eighth grade science teacher.     |
| Subsequently, two more teachers have requested the librarian to work  |
| collaboratively with them in their English classes.                   |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

Libraries That Received Grants for Two or Three Years

Of the 85 grantees in 2005--06, 11 had also received an LSL grant in at
least one previous year.[^11] These repeat grantees might be expected to
show different patterns from first-time LSL grantees; for example, they
may have already overcome some of the prior disadvantaged status that
seems often to have been associated with being an LSL grantee, plus they
may set new priorities in later years. These 11 grantees are represented
by 37 school libraries among the 611 respondents to the survey, and it
is helpful to see how these grantees compare with first-time LSL
grantees.

In the first evaluation, school libraries receiving two successive LSL
grants tended to be more disadvantaged than those receiving grants only
in 2003--04. In contrast, in the second evaluation, the repeat grantees
appear to have started with fewer disadvantages in 2004--05 than the
other grantees (Exhibit 4-31). For example, they were open for a
slightly longer number of hours during a typical full week in 2005 (32.3
versus 31.4), were open for more days in the summer (4.3 versus 2.7),
and provided a greater mean number of nonschool hours of access (7.0
versus 3.1). In addition, the repeat grantees had a greater mean number
of materials checked out per student (3.0 versus 1.9), were more likely
to provide access during nonschool hours (70 percent versus 36 percent),
and spent more on books and subscriptions (\$7,668 versus \$9,468).
There were exceptions, however. The repeat grantees had a greater ratio
of pupils per librarian than the other grantees (433.7 versus 386.4).

**Exhibit 4-31**

**Comparison of Library Characteristics Before 2005--06 Grants, by
Grantee Status**

  --------------------------- ---------- --------- -------------- ---------- ---------- --------------
  Characteristic              2005                                2006                  

                              Received             Non-grantees   Received              Non-grantees
                              Grants for                          Grants for            

                              1 Year     2 Years                  1 Year     2 Years    

  Mean hours open in typical  31.4       32.3      34.0           34.5       32.4       34.8
  full week                                                                             

  Mean days open in summer    2.7        4.3       6.8            7.9        6.3        6.4
  2003                                                                                  

  Mean number of nonschool    3.1        7.0       6.7            6.7        7.4        6.9
  hours of access                                                                       

  Mean number of materials    1.9        3.0       2.0            2.1        3.1        1.9
  checked out per student                                                               

  Percentage provided access  36%        70%       54%            72%        71%        56%
  during nonschool hours                                                                

  Mean number of pupils per   386.4      433.7     450.8          364.7      429.9      448.7
  librarian                                                                             

  Mean expenditures on books  7,667.5    9,467.6   7,315.2        26,179.6   24,367.0   8,085.0
  and subscriptions (dollars)                                                           
  --------------------------- ---------- --------- -------------- ---------- ---------- --------------

Exhibit reads: In 2005, the mean number of hours that libraries were
open in a typical full week was 31.4 hours for those who had received an
LSL grant for one year, 32.3 hours for those who had received LSL grants
for two years (through two separate grants), and 34.0 hours for those
who had never received an LSL grant.

*Source:* Second evaluation, school library media center survey
questions 1, 3--6, 8, 9, and 32.

Because repeat grantees generally appeared to start with a relative
advantage, one can examine what happened after both groups (grantees and
repeat grantees) had received grants. The findings were mixed. The
exhibit above shows that the two groups became more equal in terms of
the number of nonschool hours of access (though the repeat grantees
maintained a slight advantage), but the repeat grantees maintained their
advantage in terms of the number of materials checked out, and the other
grantees surpassed the repeat grantees on several measures (the mean
number of hours they were open in a typical week, the mean number of
days they were open during the summer, and the total expenditures on
books and subscriptions).

It is difficult to extrapolate from these findings, both because of
their mixed nature and because the findings may depend on which
particular districts received grants in a particular year.

Chapter 5

Achievement Analysis

> Key Findings

-   No definitive statement can be made based on these data as to
    whether LSL was associated with improved test scores.

-   One of the primary features of the LSL program---increasing the size
    of the book collections---was significantly related to increased
    test scores. On average, each additional book per student that
    libraries obtained was associated with an increase of 0.44
    percentage points in student test scores.

-   Some differences appeared by instructional level, with LSL grantee
    status showing a stronger relationship to student test scores at the
    elementary school level and an increase in the number of books per
    student showing a stronger relationship at the secondary school
    level.

-   Most of the change in test scores appeared to take place in the year
    after receiving the grant (2004--05) rather than in the year of the
    grant (2003--04). The estimated change in test scores was slightly
    higher in the subsample of schools that compared 2004--05 data with
    true baseline data from 2002--03. However, the differences in the
    estimates of test score changes were not statistically significant
    across the models used. Because the sample of schools varies across
    models, it is not possible to know whether the small,
    nonstatistically significant differences are a result of the
    difference in samples or a result of the different years of data
    used for comparison purposes.

To test whether the LSL program was associated with improved test
scores, this analysis used regression models to predict student test
scores in 2004--05 on state reading/English assessments based on their
test scores in 2002--03 and/or 2003--04 and on each school's LSL
participation in the 2003--04 school year. Only school-level data on
student test scores were available, but a school-level analysis is
appropriate because the LSL grants can be considered to affect the whole
school. However, the lack of student-level data does limit the ability
of this analysis to examine whether LSL affected some students
differently than other students.

Methodology

A later section of this chapter presents the actual statistical
findings. This section describes the data and the key methodological
choices that were made in the statistical analysis.

**Student Test Scores**

Student test score data were obtained from the National Longitudinal
School-Level State Assessment Score Database (NLSLSASD). These data,
available for almost all states for multiple years, consist of
school-level state assessment results for the tested grades. Because the
purpose of this study was to examine the association of LSL grants with
student literacy, the reading test scores were used in the analysis.
Some states also test students in writing; reading scores were chosen
because they were more universally available and, thus, better able to
support the statistical analysis. At higher grade levels, some states
use a test in English/language arts rather than in reading; these scores
were used in place of reading scores if no reading scores were
available.

If test scores were available for multiple grade levels for a school,
then the average proficiency level across all available grade levels was
computed, adjusting for the number of students in each grade level.[^12]
The most recent test score data available at the time of this report
were for 2004--05 and, thus, were too old to use to examine the 2005--06
school year as in the rest of this report. Therefore, the test score
data were merged with questionnaire data from the previous LSL
evaluation data (examining the 2003--04 school year). NLSLSASD is highly
comprehensive, but it does not include all states or all schools within
the states. Of the 701 respondents to the 2003--04 survey, test scores
were available for 553 schools (79 percent) in 24 states.

Because the schools in this study were not randomly assigned and the
study's comparison group sample was not matched on previous achievement,
preprogram data (2002--03) are important to control for possible
preexisting differences in achievement or in factors related to
achievement that could bias estimates of LSL-related changes in
achievement. Thus, ideally the test score analysis would include data
for at least three years for every school, and preferably more. There
would be three benefits to having such data: (1) the statistical models
could better estimate what trend in scores existed at each school before
receiving the LSL grants; (2) if data for later years were included, the
models could examine whether any increase in test scores persisted or
changed in later years; and (3) the models could test the empirical
question of whether the grants showed some association with improved
test scores during the year of the grant or whether a longer time period
was required before any change in test scores could be found.

Unfortunately, data for only a limited number of years were available.
At the time of the study, no data were available for the years after
2004--05, and data were unavailable for 2002--03, the baseline year, for
60 percent of the respondents. Because of the lack of complete baseline
data, this analysis compares three different types of approaches. One
approach analyzes only schools for which three years of data were
available (i.e., 2002--03 through 2004--05). However, given the large
amount of missing baseline data, this approach both reduces the size of
the data set and provides a less representative set of schools. A second
approach predicts the 2004--05 scores using data from the year after the
grant (2003--04) instead of the baseline year (2002--03). Although this
model allows more of the sample to be included in the analysis, it also
assumes that there is no LSL-associated change in achievement during the
year of the grant and that there are no preexisting differences between
the LSL and non-LSL schools in the sample, both of which are untestable
assumptions. A third approach is a hybrid approach, using the 2002--03
data where available, but using 2003--04 data for the remaining cases so
all cases can be retained for the analysis. This analysis uses a dummy
variable to differentiate between the two groups of data. Each of these
three approaches has advantages and disadvantages, and the collective
use of all three allows us to better understand the implications of each
one. These three approaches are discussed in greater detail in a later
section.

**Comparison Group**

The design of the comparison group of nongrantee schools for the 2004
survey is similar to the design for the current study. Collectively, the
comparison schools represent all schools that were in districts eligible
to receive LSL grants in 2003--04 (i.e., at least 20 percent of the
students in the LEA must be from families with incomes below the poverty
line) and that had not received LSL grants in the past. To the extent
possible, comparison schools were chosen from the same states as the
sampled grantee schools to keep the test scores as comparable as
possible. This analysis is based on data from 24 states.

The grantees in the study were a subsample of 400 grantee schools from
the approximately 650 schools that received grants in 2003--04.
Similarly, a sample of 400 comparison schools was selected by drawing an
equal number of comparison schools from each of the specified matching
cells, based on the sampling strata. The district-level characteristics
that were used in the matching process included region, district poverty
status, school district type, urbanicity and district enrollment size.
The school-level characteristics that were used in the matching process
included instructional level, school type, enrollment size, type of
locale, percentage of students belonging to racial/ethnic minorities and
the percentage receiving free lunches. Because baseline achievement data
were not available at the time of sampling, we were unable to match
comparison and LSL schools on prior achievement. Special attention was
given to identifying similar comparison schools for those few grantee
schools with unusual characteristics (charter school districts or
single-school districts). Both grantees and nongrantees were weighted
based on the probability of selection and to adjust for nonresponse. The
grantees were weighted to represent the approximately 650 schools
receiving grants. The nongrantees were weighted to represent the pool of
eligible schools (i.e., schools in districts with high poverty) that did
not receive LSL grants. Because nongrantees were weighted to represent a
population with a potentially different distribution of characteristics
than in the original sample, the weighted and unweighted statistics can
show different distributions. We chose to weight the nongrantees to the
total population of eligible schools that did not receive LSL grants for
the following reasons: (a) for many types of statistics, there is a
natural interest in comparing LSL schools with all eligible schools; (b)
the characteristics of specific schools that get awards can change from
year to year, while eligibility provides a straightforward way of
identifying the schools of interest; and (c) though the weights of the
comparison schools could be made proportional to the LSL weights, it
would no longer be clear what class of schools was being discussed,
while LSL eligibility clearly defines such a class.

Exhibit 5-1 shows how the grantees and nongrantees compared on several
school characteristics, both for the original set of survey respondents
and for the reduced set of schools that were available for the test
score analysis. The grantee and nongrantee survey respondents showed
highly similar distributions when using unweighted statistics (generally
within 1.5 percentage points for those characteristics that were used
for matching) and somewhat less similar distributions when using
weighted statistics (generally within 4 or 5 percentage points). A
similar pattern appeared for the subset of schools with test scores:
there were small differences in the unweighted distributions (generally
within 2 percentage points) and somewhat larger differences in the
weighted distributions (generally within 4 or 5 percentage points). The
only statistically significant differences between grantees and
nongrantees in Exhibit 5-1 were with respect to middle and
secondary/combined schools. Because the analysis focuses on change over
time and schools do not ordinarily change instructional levels, the
differences based on school level should not have had an important
effect on the results. Also, the end of this chapter includes a separate
analysis by school level.

Mean reading test scores at baseline were not available at the time the
samples were drawn, and are still missing for 60 percent of the
respondents, but can be used as an additional tool for examining how the
two samples compared (Exhibit 5-2). The baseline test score means
generally were within 2 percentage points when comparing grantees and
nongrantees; however, 60 percent of the sample is missing from this
comparison.

**Exhibit 5-1**

**Comparison of Grantees and Nongrantees, by School Characteristics in
2002--03**

+--------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| School       | Pe   |      |      |      | Pe   |      |      |      |
| Ch           | rcen |      |      |      | rcen |      |      |      |
| aracteristic | tage |      |      |      | tage |      |      |      |
|              | of   |      |      |      | of   |      |      |      |
|              | Su   |      |      |      | Test |      |      |      |
|              | rvey |      |      |      | S    |      |      |      |
|              | Res  |      |      |      | core |      |      |      |
|              | pond |      |      |      | Sch  |      |      |      |
|              | ents |      |      |      | ools |      |      |      |
+--------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
|              | Un   |      | Weig |      | Un   |      | Weig |      |
|              | weig |      | hted |      | weig |      | hted |      |
|              | hted |      |      |      | hted |      |      |      |
+--------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
|              | Gran | Non- | Gran | Non- | Gran | Non- | Gran | Non- |
|              | tees | gran | tees | gran | tees | gran | tees | gran |
|              |      | tees |      | tees |      | tees |      | tees |
|              | (*n* |      | (*n* |      | (*n* |      | (*n* |      |
|              | =    | (*n* | =    | (*n* | =    | (*n* | =    | (*n* |
|              | 353  | =    | 628  | =    | 276  | =    | 481  | =    |
|              | scho | 348  | scho | 16   | scho | 277  | scho | 12   |
|              | ols) | scho | ols) | ,076 | ols) | scho | ols) | ,687 |
|              |      | ols) |      | scho |      | ols) |      | scho |
|              |      |      |      | ols) |      |      |      | ols) |
+--------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
|              |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+--------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| **School     |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
| enrollment   |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
| size**       |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+--------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Less than    | 31.4 | 32.2 | 39.8 | 44.2 | 29.3 | 30.7 | 37.4 | 42.2 |
| 300          |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+--------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| 300--499     | 34.8 | 32.2 | 35.0 | 31.2 | 34.8 | 32.1 | 35.0 | 31.2 |
+--------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| 500 or more  | 33.7 | 35.6 | 25.2 | 24.6 | 35.9 | 37.2 | 27.6 | 26.6 |
+--------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
|              |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+--------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| **Level**    |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+--------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Elementary   | 47.0 | 45.7 | 57.4 | 53.7 | 47.1 | 45.5 | 57.9 | 53.0 |
+--------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Middle       | 27.2 | 27.9 | 20.4 | 16.0 | 30.1 | 30.3 | 23.0 | 17.1 |
|              |      |      |      | \*\* |      |      |      | \*\* |
+--------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Secondary/   | 25.8 | 26.4 | 22.3 | 30.3 | 22.8 | 24.2 | 19.0 | 29.9 |
|              |      |      |      | \*\* |      |      |      | \*\* |
|    combined  |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+--------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
|              |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+--------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| **Total      |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
| expenditures |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
| per\         |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
| student,     |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
| spring       |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
| 2003**       |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+--------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Small        | 35.7 | 35.3 | 34.3 | 31.7 | 33.7 | 31.0 | 32.6 | 25.5 |
+--------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Medium       | 32.9 | 33.6 | 31.8 | 32.5 | 34.1 | 36.1 | 32.8 | 35.8 |
+--------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Large        | 31.4 | 31.0 | 34   | 35.8 | 32.2 | 32.9 | 34.6 | 38.8 |
+--------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
|              |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+--------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| **Total FTE  |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
| staff,       |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
| spring       |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
| 2003**       |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+--------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Small        | 49.0 | 44.3 | 54.8 | 50.4 | 48.9 | 46.2 | 55.0 | 52.1 |
+--------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Medium       | 21.2 | 17.5 | 19.6 | 18.0 | 20.3 | 16.2 | 17.4 | 16.6 |
+--------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Large        | 29.7 | 38.2 | 25.7 | 31.6 | 30.8 | 37.5 | 27.5 | 31.3 |
+--------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+

\* *p* [\<]{.underline} 0.05; \*\* *p* \< 0.01 comparisons are between
grantees and nongrantees.

*Note*: Percentages may not add to 100 because of rounding.

Exhibit 5-2 does provide evidence suggesting there were substantial
"baseline" differences in test scores between schools that had test
scores available in 2002--03 and those that did not.[^13] For example,
the mean test result in 2003--04 among grantees was 57.4 for those with
test scores available for 2002--03, and 36.0 among grantees without test
scores available for 2002--03. Similar differences appeared among the
nongrantees, and all of these differences were statistically significant
(though none of the differences between grantees and nongrantees were
statistically significant). Thus, if 2002--03 data were available for
all schools, the rate of improvement for both grantees and nongrantees
may be somewhat lower than the estimates produced here.

**Exhibit 5-2**

**Comparison of Grantees and Nongrantees, by Mean Test Scores in
Reading**

  ------------------------- ---------- -------------- ------------ -------------- ---------- --------------
  School Year               Number of                 Mean Test                              
                            Schools                   Scores in                              
                                                      Reading                                

                                                      Unweighted                  Weighted   

                            Grantees   Non-grantees   Grantees     Non-grantees   Grantees   Non-grantees

                                                                                             

  2002--03                  108        111            50.7         48.7           53.3       52.4

  2003--04 (total)          270        268            42.7         42.4           43.8       41.8

  Among those with data for 107        111            54.6         52.5           57.4       54.4
  2002--03                                                                                   

  Among those without data  163        157            34.9         35.4           36.0       34.3
  for 2002--03                                                                               

  2004--05 (total)          271        274            47.1         45.5           48.1       44.5

  Among those with data for 107        111            60.6         56.6           63.6       59.1
  2002--03                                                                                   

  Among those without data  164        163            38.3         37.9           39.3       36.3
  for 2002--03                                                                               

  Prior test score^a^       271        268            41.2         40.9           42.3       41.1
  ------------------------- ---------- -------------- ------------ -------------- ---------- --------------

*Note:* None of the differences between grantees and nongrantees were
statistically significant.

^a^From 2002--03 if available; otherwise from 2003--04.

**Comparisons Across States**

State test scores are difficult to compare across states. The tests vary
in the specific content covered, the quantitative scales used for
scoring, and in the performance levels required to achieve proficiency.
This variation is especially an issue if one uses "raw" (unstandardized)
test scores; for example, a score of 80 in one state might indicate a
higher level of proficiency than a score of 300 in another. Also,
because of differences in the content areas covered and in the weighting
given to each component of a score, a score on one test cannot be
accurately converted to show what score a student would achieve on
another test.

To establish a common metric that would be more meaningful across
states, this analysis focused on the percentage of students who met or
exceeded their state's standard for proficiency. This measure has a
standard scale across all states (i.e., ranging from 0 to 100 percent),
unlike the raw test scores. It also has a more standardized meaning:
even if states differ on how they measure proficiency or on the levels
they set to indicate proficiency, policy-makers evaluate students and
schools in terms of their ability to satisfy the state standards.
Assuming that each state's test is designed to match the state's
curriculum (a requirement of the *No Child Left Behind Act* that states
have been working to meet), this metric changes the focus from what
scores are achieved (which may change depending on the test and the
curriculum) to schools' success in training students based on the state
curriculum.

In principle, the state proficiency metric can be just as precise as a
raw score, with two main exceptions. First, because the percentage
scores are typically rounded to the nearest integer in the database, a
percentage score may not be as sensitive to small changes as the raw
score. Second, to the extent that states are successful in getting all
students to achieve proficiency, there may be insufficient variation to
compare grantees and nongrantees. Such a lack of variation could occur
either if schools are successful in raising students' skills/knowledge
or if states set such minimal levels for demonstrating proficiency that
essentially all students can pass.[^14] In practice, the percentages
showed sufficient variation so neither of these two factors presented a
serious problem for this analysis, though the second factor may become
increasingly important as states seek to demonstrate progress in later
years. Also, LSL grants are directed at disadvantaged districts (and
often further directed by the districts to the most disadvantaged
schools within those districts), and such districts/schools typically
have lower proficiency levels among their students, lessening the
likelihood that schools might be so near to the top that there is little
room for improvement.

However, using this state proficiency metric tends to place the focus on
students who are close to the cutoff point. Some schools/districts may
choose to focus services on students just below the cutoff point,
figuring that this approach gives them the best chance of satisfying the
standards. In this case, changes in the percentage of students who are
proficient may tend to overstate the degree to which improvement is
shared across all students. Alternatively, this measure can mask any
student-level changes in performance that may have occurred above or
below the cutoff point. Even substantial changes in student achievement
can go undetected when average student performance does not cross a
given threshold, leading to underestimates of the improvements in
student performance. Both types of risks are inherent in the way that
schools are currently evaluated (i.e., in terms of the percentage of
students reaching proficiency); ideally, this analysis would use
student-level data to examine changes in test scores across all
students, but the use of school-level results does correspond with the
expectations currently being placed on the schools. It is difficult to
know how these considerations might interact with the evaluation of the
LSL program. School libraries, by their nature, are meant to serve all
students. However, the books that libraries choose to purchase may have
greater relevance to some students than to others, the ability to make
use of the library may vary among different groups of students, and the
need for library services also varies among students. Focusing on
changes among students near the cutoff point may or may not reflect
those students who are most affected by the LSL grants.

As a second tool to facilitate making comparisons across states (and
localities), this analysis focused on how test scores changed from one
year to another rather than on the absolute levels of the scores.
Comparing changes in scores puts the focus on whether the grantees
showed greater improvement, which is a meaningful concept for any
school.[^15] School and student characteristics tend to stay stable over
time, so schools typically show little change from one year to another.
In statistical terms, if the mean test scores for one year are used to
predict the mean test scores for the next year, 96 percent of the
variance is explained. A focus on changes in test scores also lessens
the need to model every factor that influences test scores; in fact,
variables that would be important when predicting absolute test scores
often drop out when predicting change.

In summary, focusing on the percentage of students who were proficient
helps to adjust for differences across states in how test scores are
computed, and focusing on the change in scores rather than on actual
scores further lessens the need to model those factors that have a
consistent effect on students from one year to another (whether those
differences are differences in testing, in school characteristics or in
student characteristics).

**Use of Measures of Correlation**

This analysis is based on the correlation of student test scores with
participation in the LSL program (or with features related to
participation in LSL). Any such analysis is always subject to the
possibility that other unmeasured factors may be responsible for the
correlations. For this reason, researchers prefer experimental designs
(e.g., with participation in LSL determined by random assignment).

To lessen the chances that false correlations may appear, this research
uses a quasi-experimental design in which a set of comparison schools
was chosen that did not participate in LSL but that otherwise was
similar to the LSL participants on demographic variables available to
the study team. Because baseline achievement data were not available at
the time of sampling, we were unable to match comparison and LSL schools
on prior achievement. Still, the fact that schools or districts chose to
seek the grants and succeeded in obtaining them may distinguish these
schools in important ways from other schools. It remains possible that
other unmeasured factors such as preexisting differences in test scores
may be responsible for LSL-related changes in test scores. This research
is necessarily exploratory and subject to confirmation or contradiction
by later research.

**Specification of Variables**

The decision to focus on change over time helps to simplify the
regression models. Many of the factors that might be presumed to
influence student test scores could be implicitly included in the model
through the measure of prior test scores.

Unfortunately, only 219 of the 553 schools (40 percent) had data
available for the year before the grant. Thus, this study used three
approaches. First, to maximize the available sample, one set of
regressions looked only at change in the year after the grant (i.e.,
comparing 2003--04 with 2004--05). This approach is based on the
hypothesis that most, if not all, of any LSL-related changes in test
scores were likely to occur in the year after the grant because of the
time required to implement the grant (e.g., the time required to
purchase and distribute new books) and for students to respond to those
changes. Necessarily, however, this approach is incapable of measuring
LSL-related changes in the year of the grant. Second, an alternative set
of models also predicted 2004--05 test results using the school test
score results from the baseline year, 2002--03. This approach controls
for preexisting differences in achievement and allows the measurement of
grant-associated change in the year of the grant, though at the cost of
losing more than half of the respondents. Third, as a way of
incorporating all of the available test score data, another set of
models used a single variable that contained either 2002--03 results
(when they were available) or 2003--04 results (if 2002--03 results were
not available). The model also included a dummy variable indicating
whether test score data were available for 2002--03. This approach
allows the change over time to be broken in two parts: the coefficient
for the test score variable represents the average change from 2003--04
to 2004--05, and the coefficient for the dummy variable represents the
additional change experienced among schools with test scores from
2002--03.[^16] If schools did experience some LSL-related change in
2003--04, then this approach might be expected to produce results
somewhere between the first two approaches, capturing some of the change
that appeared in 2003--04 but not all of it.

A second set of choices involved how to model grantees' participation.
The simplest approach was to use a dichotomous variable (taking the
values of 1 for grantees and 0 for nongrantees) so the coefficient shows
the estimated change in reading proficiency that is associated with
receiving an LSL grant. This approach has the advantage of directly
estimating the change in test scores associated with receiving the LSL
grants. As a slight modification to that approach, some models in this
analysis also include a dichotomous variable measuring whether the
grantee had also received an LSL grant in a previous year. On the one
hand, if test score data were available for the year before the first
grant, one might hypothesize that the repeat grantees would show larger
total increases than other grantees because of the additional aid they
received. On the other hand, given the limited number of years of data
used in this analysis, there is a risk that the "base" scores taken from
2003 or 2004 may include some of the early improvement associated with
the first grant so the total improvement related to the grants could be
underestimated.

An alternative way of measuring grantees' participation is to model the
specific changes they made as part of the grant (e.g., increasing the
number of books the library purchased per student and increasing the
number of hours the library was open).[^17] This alternative approach
does not directly estimate improvements that are associated with
receiving the LSL grants because grantees varied in the degree to which
they made each change. However, it potentially provides information on
which aspects of implementing the grant are most associated with
improved test scores and, thus, may provide information on how to better
implement the program in the future. Also, if some grantees failed to
make these particular changes, or if some nongrantees made the changes
even without receiving the grants, then the differences between grantees
and nongrantees may be small and statistically insignificant, even if
the programmatic changes themselves were useful for many grantees. Thus,
this alternative approach helps to measure whether some grantees were
helped by the grants and whether these particular focuses of the LSL
grant program are appropriate focuses.

Finally, one theory is that the relationship between LSL participation
and achievement scores varies between grade levels. Therefore, a set of
regression models were calculated for elementary schools and secondary
schools. Middle/junior-high schools were combined with senior-high
schools to retain a sufficient number of schools in the analysis. The
number of schools at each level was roughly half that of the overall
analyses (256 elementary schools and 296 secondary schools), resulting
in increased standard errors and a reduced likelihood of finding
statistically significant results.

**Regression Through the Origin**

Typically, regression models include an intercept term, and the
regression results can be interpreted as modeling variation around the
mean, as represented by the intercept. Sometimes, however, the intercept
is not meaningful from a theoretical perspective, and it is dropped from
the model. For this study, if the intercept is dropped, then the model
has a clear interpretation: the coefficient for the test result variable
reflects the overall proportional change in the scores from one year to
the next. For example, a coefficient of 1.03 would reflect an overall
improvement of 3 percent in the test results, and a coefficient of 0.98
would reflect an overall decline of 2 percent. Alternately, including
the coefficient results in a less plausible model: one then would be
predicting the 2004--05 results as being equal to the overall mean for
the same year, plus an adjustment based on the earlier test results for
each school. The coefficient for the test result variable thus is much
more difficult to interpret, as is a determination of whether there was
an overall pattern of improvement from one year to another. When
comparing both versions of the regression model, regression through the
origin also appeared to perform better from a statistical perspective:
*R*^2^ increased from 0.84 to 0.96. *R*^2^ has a different meaning when
using regression through the origin and can even be negative, but the
improvement in *R*^2^ can be interpreted as indicating that regression
through the origin provides a better fit of the data. Also, the standard
errors for the test score measure decreased (e.g., from 0.030 to 0.016)
while the other standard errors remained roughly the same, which could
be interpreted as suggesting that regression through the origin provided
a better fit of the relationship between past and current test scores.
Therefore, regression through the origin is used in this report.

**Construction of Statistical Models**

The structure of the models is based on the assumption that the mean
proficiency levels for 2005 can be predicted by starting with the mean
proficiency for 2004 (or 2003), plus some average change over time that
is common to all schools and some improvement because of the specific
changes that were made by the schools (i.e., receiving an LSL grant or
increasing the number of books per student and/or the number of hours
the library was open).

The base model thus can be estimated as

Proficiency~2005~ = β x Proficiency~2004~ + ε

where the coefficient β represents the average change across schools
from their proficiency levels in 2004 (e.g., β = 1.05 represents an
average improvement of 5 percent), and ε represents random error. This
model was highly successful, predicting 96 percent of the variance,
indicating that it is possible to predict school test scores based on
test scores from the previous year with a high degree of accuracy and by
using no other variables to adjust for differences among schools. On
average, schools eligible for the LSL program showed a 5 percent
increase in the percentage of students who met or exceeded proficiency
on their reading/English state assessment.

To directly estimate the level of improvement associated with receiving
the LSL grant, model 1a modifies the base model by adding either a
single term representing LSL participation in 2003--04 or two terms
measuring LSL participation in 2003--04 and in a prior year.

(Model 1) Proficiency~2005~ = β~1~ x Proficiency~2004~ + β~2~ x
Grantee~2004~ + ε

(Model 1a) Proficiency~2005~ = β~1~ x Proficiency~2004~ + β~2~ x
Grantee~2004~ + β~3~ x Grantee~Prior~ + ε

Here, the coefficient β~1~ represents the average change across
districts from their proficiency levels in 2003--04, β~2~ represents the
improvement associated with being a grantee in 2003--04, and β~3~
represents the improvement associated with being a repeat grantee.

To measure whether other school reform efforts might be associated with
test score increases rather than LSL, model 1b modifies model 1a by
adding measures of participation in Title I, Reading First, Early
Reading First, and Comprehensive School Reform. Reading First and
Comprehensive School Reform were not statistically significant and were
dropped from the models. The measures added were each dummy variables,
taking the value of 1 if a school participated in a particular program
and 0 otherwise. Early Reading First is a program that applies only to
elementary schools, not middle schools or high schools. However, this
circumstance does not present a problem in the statistical models. In
the models that include both elementary and secondary schools, the
measure takes the value of 0 when applied to secondary schools; thus,
the model tests for an extra gain in test scores in participating
elementary schools relative to schools that did not participate (either
because they did not have Early Reading First Programs or because they
were secondary schools). Early Reading First is not included in the
models for secondary schools only; it would then always take the value
of 0 and would not be meaningful.

> (Model 1b) Proficiency~2005~ = β~1~ x Proficiency~2004~ + β~2~ x
> Grantee~2004~ + β~3~ x TitleI + β~4~ x EReadFirst +\
> β~5~ x Grantee~Prior~ + ε

To estimate the level of improvement associated with specific library
improvements, model 2 replaces the terms measuring LSL participation
with terms measuring the increase in the number of books that libraries
purchased per student and in the number of hours the library was open.
Because these two terms may interact with each other, they were included
not only together in one regression equation but also separately in
additional regression equations (models 2a and 2b).

(Model 2) Proficiency~2005~ = β~1~ x Proficiency~2004~ + β~2~ x Books +
β~3~ x Hours + ε

(Model 2a) Proficiency~2005~ = β~1~ x Proficiency~2004~ + β~2~ x Hours +
ε

(Model 2b) Proficiency~2005~ = β~1~ x Proficiency~2004~ + β~2~ x Books +
ε

Finally, because some improvements in test scores may have occurred in
2003--04 and would be missed in a time comparison between 2003--04 and
2004--05, the models above were all repeated using an alternative
measure of early proficiency (the proficiency level in 2002--03 when
available and the level in 2003--04 otherwise), plus a new variable
indicating which data were used (1 if the proficiency measure is for
2002--03 and 0 if the measure is for 2003--04).

(Alternate Model 1) Proficiency~2005~ = β~1~ x Proficiency~2003/2004~ +
β~2~ x Grantee~2004~ + β~3~ x Data~2003~ +ε

> (Alternate Model 1a) Proficiency~2005~ = β~1~ x
> Proficiency~2003/2004~ + β~2~ x Grantee~2004~ + β~3~ x
> Grantee~Prior~ + β~4~ x Data~2003~ + ε
>
> (Alternate Model 2) Proficiency~2005~ = β~1~ x
> Proficiency~2003/2004~ + β~2~ x Books + β~3~ x Hours + β~3~ x
> Data~2003~ + ε

(Alternate Model 2a) Proficiency~2005~ = β~1~ x Proficiency~2003/2004~ +
β~2~ x Hours + β~3~ x Data~2003~ + ε

(Alternate Model 2b) Proficiency~2005~ = β~1~ x Proficiency~2003/2004~ +
β~2~ x Books + β~3~ x Data~2003~ + ε

These models can be interpreted in the same way as the previous models,
except that β~1~ represents the average improvement over time from
2003--04 to 2004--05, and the coefficient before Data~2003~ (either β~2~
or β~3~) represents the average improvement over time from 2002--03 to
2003--04).

If data were available for individual students, then the models could
alternatively be constructed as hierarchical models, with student-level
and school-level variables examined in separate equations. Student-level
data were not available, however, and all variables are measured at the
school level.

Because the test score analysis is based on the first LSL evaluation
(i.e., for grants received in 2003--04), the questionnaire data included
in the file are from the same evaluation. Thus, some variables that
appear to be of interest in earlier chapters of this report are not
available for the test score analysis. For example, Exhibit 4-27 shows
that more grantee libraries provided professional development resources
on Teaching Children to Read. However, these data are not available for
the first evaluation.

**Standard Errors**

The regression estimates were calculated using replicate weights to
adjust for the use of a complex sample. The resulting standard errors
ranged from 0.9 to 1.7 times the standard errors produced by standard
statistical software for surveys based on simple random samples. Thus,
in many cases the use of standard statistical software would result in
incorrect conclusions about the statistical significance of the
estimates.

**Limitations and Design Issues**

This study raised a large number of important design and analysis
issues, which are discussed in detail throughout this chapter. In this
section, we provide a brief summary of these issues.

-   **Random assignment.** The schools were not randomly assigned to
    treatment and control groups. Therefore, no causal inferences about
    these findings can be made.

-   **Sample selection.** The grantee schools were chosen through a
    stratified random sample of schools receiving LSL grants in
    2003--04. Comparison schools were chosen to collectively show a
    similar range of characteristics as the grantee schools. Because
    baseline achievement data were not available at the time of
    sampling, we were unable to match comparison and LSL schools on
    prior achievement. Although the sample design provided for every
    district receiving an LSL grant to have at least one school chosen,
    LSL grants were not equally distributed across all states.
    Similarly, because the comparison schools were chosen from the same
    states as much as possible (to have test scores that were more
    comparable), they also were not distributed across all states. The
    sample includes data from only 24 states.

-   **Potential for selection bias.** Exhibits 5-1 and 5-2 show that the
    comparison schools were largely similar but not identical to the
    grantee schools, both with respect to the sampling characteristics
    and with respect to baseline reading scores. However, baseline
    reading scores are not available for 60 percent of the sample, thus
    we are unable to definitively establish baseline equivalence on
    achievement for the full set of respondents. This limitation was
    true not only for the original set of questionnaire respondents but
    also for the reduced set of schools for which test score data were
    available. Aside from the comparisons shown in Exhibit 5-1, there
    could be important unobserved differences between the grantee and
    comparison schools, though such variables are likely to be at least
    correlated with the variables in Exhibit 5-1.

-   **Weighting.** Comparison schools were weighted to represent all
    schools in districts that were eligible for but had not received LSL
    grants. Weighted statistics can change the degree to which the
    comparison groups show the same distribution of characteristics as
    the grantee schools. More specifically, weighting increased the
    differences between grantee and comparison schools, though the
    differences still were not large (Exhibit 5-1 and 5-2).

-   **Test scores used.** The analysis used the percentage of students
    considered proficient on state reading tests. Such proficiency
    scores ignore any student-level changes in performance that may have
    occurred above or below the cutoff point and could either understate
    or overstate the degree to which change is shared across all
    students.

-   **Years for which data were available.** True pretest data were
    available only for 40 percent of the schools included in the
    analyses. Some analysis models are based solely on the schools for
    which true baseline data from 2002--03 were available to control for
    preexisting differences in achievement between LSL and non-LSL
    schools. Other models predict the 2004--05 scores using data from
    the year of the grant (2003--04) instead of the baseline year
    (2002--03). This approach allows more of the sample to be included
    in the analysis, but it also assumes that there is no LSL-associated
    change in achievement during the year of the grant and does not
    control for preexisting differences between the LSL and non-LSL
    schools in the sample. A third set of models uses a hybrid approach,
    incorporating all of the respondents and using 2002--03 data when
    they were available, but using 2003--04 data when 2002--03 data were
    not available. When this study was conducted, data after 2004--05
    were unavailable, which precluded any analysis of extended changes
    in test scores following the receipt of the grants.

-   **Regression to the mean.** When individuals are chosen for a study
    based on attributes such as low test scores, some are likely to have
    unusually low scores because of measurement error. When they are
    tested again, the new measure may show great improvement and may be
    falsely interpreted as real change in reading proficiency, when it
    actually represents only a more accurate measure of reading
    proficiency. This study did not target individuals with low test
    scores, but some districts did target low-performing schools when
    allocating LSL grants to their schools. This situation could
    indirectly create the potential for regression to the mean. However,
    several factors lessen the likelihood of this problem. First, the
    comparison schools were chosen to match the grantee schools, though
    not by using test scores, so they should show the same potential for
    regression to the mean as the grantee schools. Exhibit 5-2 shows
    that for the 40 percent of the sample with baseline reading scores,
    the scores were actually quite similar before the grants for
    grantees and the comparison schools. Second, school-level data tend
    to be much more stable than individual-level data; that is,
    individual fluctuations balance out when viewed collectively and, in
    fact, varied only slightly from year to year. Using test scores from
    one year to predict test scores in the following year explained 96
    percent of the variance. Third, even when districts targeted the
    schools that were the lowest performers, they may have based those
    judgments on multiple years rather than on temporary fluctuations.
    Thus, regression to the mean does not appear to present a serious
    issue for this study.

-   **Potential for multiple concurrent reforms.** The fact that a
    school receives an LSL grant may indicate something about the
    district and the school, for example, that the district/school has a
    strong reform orientation, that it is capable of preparing a
    comprehensive plan that will be approved by the U.S. Department of
    Education, and that it is actively involved in school improvement
    efforts. When multiple reforms occur simultaneously, it can be
    difficult or even impossible to determine how changes in test scores
    are related to specific reforms. The orientation of the
    district/school toward reform may be as important, or more
    important, than a specific reform program. Given some evidence in
    this study that the grantee schools were more likely to participate
    in other such school improvement efforts, it is difficult to
    determine the precise amount of improvement associated with LSL
    participation.

Because of these issues, no definitive statement can be made based on
these data as to whether LSL was associated with improved test scores.

Presentation of Multiple Measures of Test Scores

Because the schools in this study were not randomly assigned and the
study's comparison group sample was not matched on previous achievement,
preprogram data (2002--03) are important to control for possible
preexisting differences in achievement that could bias estimates of
LSL-related changes in achievement. Ideally, the test score analysis
would include data for at least three years for every school and
preferably more. There would be three benefits to having such data: (1)
the statistical models could better estimate what trend in scores
existed at each school before receiving the LSL grants; (2) if data for
later years were included, then the models could examine whether any
increase in test scores persisted or changed in later years; and (3) the
models could test the empirical question of whether the grants showed
some association with improved test scores during the year of the grant
or whether a longer time period was required before any change in test
scores could be found.

Unfortunately, only a limited number of years of data were available. At
the time of the study, no data were available for the years after
2004--05, and data were unavailable for 2002--03, the baseline year, in
60 percent of the sample. Thus, Exhibit 5-3 presents findings from three
parallel sets of regression models, each using a different approach to
measuring change in test scores over time.

-   **Time A.** The first analysis uses scores from 2003--04 (the grant
    year) to predict 2004--05 scores. This approach maximizes the sample
    that can be included in the analysis. However, it also assumes that
    there is no LSL-associated change in achievement during the year of
    the grant and that there are no preexisting differences between the
    LSL and non-LSL schools in the sample, both of which are untestable
    assumptions when using this approach.

-   **Time B.** The second analysis starts with test score data from the
    year before the grant (2002--03), using those scores to predict
    improvements in 2004--05. This approach allows one to control for
    possible preexisting differences in achievement between LSL and
    non-LSL schools and to measure the full extent of LSL-related
    changes (at least in the first two years, though there could be
    benefits in later years). Unfortunately, test scores for 2002--03
    were available only for 219 schools, so this analysis applied to
    less than half of the 553 schools in the first analysis. The
    reduction in the number of cases could reduce the chances of finding
    statistically significant relationships; further, if those 219
    schools differed in important ways from the larger set, then this
    second approach may not properly represent what LSL-related changes
    appeared overall. This model by itself also cannot provide
    information about which years showed LSL-related improvements in
    test scores, though one can compare these results with those of the
    first analysis, using caution in making inferences given the
    differences in samples.

-   **Time C.** The third analysis also uses 2002--03 data where
    available to predict 2004--05 test scores, but rather than drop the
    234 schools lacking 2002--03 data, it includes them by replacing the
    missing 2002--03 data with the test scores from 2003--04. So the
    regression estimates can properly distinguish between the two years,
    the analysis also includes a dummy variable that is 1 when data from
    2002--03 were available and 0 otherwise. Thus, the coefficient for
    "prior test score" represents the average change across all schools
    from 2003--04 to 2004--05 while the coefficient for "test scores
    available in 2002--03" represents the average change between
    2002--03 and 2003--04. The coefficient for LSL grantee represents
    the average LSL-related improvement when both grantees with 2002--03
    data and those with only 2003--04

**Exhibit 5-3**

**Regression Models to Estimate Association of 2003--04 LSL Grants With
2004--05 Test Scores, With Various Baseline Years for Test Results**

  ------------------------ ---------- ---------- ----------- ---------- ---------- ----------- -------------- ---------- -----------
  Variable                 Time A\                           Time B\                           Time C\                   
                           Using                             Using                             Using                     
                           2003--04                          2002--03                          Combination\              
                           Test                              Test                              (*n* = 553)               
                           Scores\                           Scores\                                                     
                           (*n* =                            (*n* =                                                      
                           553)                              219)                                                        

                           Estimate   Standard   *P*-value   Estimate   Standard   *P*-value   Estimate       Standard   *P*-value
                                      Error                             Error                                 Error      

  **Model 1---Overall test                                                                                               
  of LSL grant**                                                                                                         

  Prior test score         1.05       0.017      0.000       1.12       0.026      0.000       1.03           0.022      0.000

  LSL grantee              2.22       1.076      0.039       3.77       1.733      0.030       2.71           1.065      0.011

  Test scores available                                                                        5.30           1.569      0.001
  for 2002--03                                                                                                           

  **Model 1a---Overall                                                                                                   
  test of LSL grant**                                                                                                    

  Prior test score         1.05       0.017      0.000       1.12       0.026      0.000       1.03           0.023      0.000

  LSL grantee              2.40       1.077      0.026       4.07       1.753      0.021       2.79           1.078      0.010

  LSL grantee for 2 or     -4.20      4.743      0.376       -2.45      4.205      0.561       -1.92          4.224      0.650
  more years                                                                                                             

  Test scores available                                                                        5.31           1.572      0.001
  for 2002--03                                                                                                           

  **Model 1b---Overall                                                                                                   
  test of LSL grant and                                                                                                  
  other reforms**                                                                                                        

  Prior test score         1.00       0.021      0.000       1.05       0.032      0.000       1.00           0.027      0.000

  LSL grantee              0.96       1.043      0.357       3.10       1.776      0.081       1.93           1.064      0.071

  Title I                  3.94       1.081      0.000       4.96       2.140      0.021       2.78           1.011      0.006

  Early Reading First      6.26       1.501      0.000                                                                   

  Test scores available                                                                        4.81           1.482      0.001
  for 2002--03                                                                                                           

  **Model 2---Test of                                                                                                    
  library changes**                                                                                                      

  Prior test score         1.04       0.018      0.000       1.12       0.030      0.000       1.01           0.025      0.000

  Increase in hours the    0.45       0.260      0.083       -0.18      0.797      0.823       0.11           0.316      0.723
  school library was open                                                                                                

  Increase in books per    0.47       0.193      0.014       0.40       0.569      0.487       0.49           0.191      0.011
  student                                                                                                                

  Test scores available                                                                        6.22           1.766      0.000
  for 2002--03                                                                                                           

  **Model 2a---Test of                                                                                                   
  library changes**                                                                                                      

  Prior test score         1.05       0.016      0.000       1.12       0.024      0.000       1.03           0.023      0.000

  Increase in hours the    0.41       0.259      0.115       -0.16      0.778      0.837       0.08           0.309      0.806
  school library was open                                                                                                

  Test scores available                                                                        5.36           1.599      0.001
  for 2002--03                                                                                                           

  **Model 2b---Test of                                                                                                   
  library changes**                                                                                                      

  Prior test score         1.04       0.018      0.000       1.11       0.032      0.000       1.01           0.025      0.000

  Increase in books per    0.42       0.192      0.029       0.35       0.543      0.516       0.44           0.190      0.021
  student                                                                                                                

  Test scores available                                                                        6.34           1.765      0.000
  for 2002--03                                                                                                           
  ------------------------ ---------- ---------- ----------- ---------- ---------- ----------- -------------- ---------- -----------

Exhibit reads: Model 1, using data for 2003--04, indicates that test
scores for both grantees and nongrantees increased by 5 percent compared
with 2003--04. The test scores for grantees were 2.2 percentage points
higher than would be expected if they had not received the grants. Both
statistics were statistically significant, with *p*-values below 0.05.

*Note:* *R*^2^ ranged from 0.955 to 0.973 across all models.

*Source:* National Longitudinal School-Level State Assessment Database
(2003, 2004, 2005); first evaluation, school library media center survey
questions, 1, 4 and 31.

data are mixed together; it thus can capture LSL-related improvements in
2003--04 in some schools but not in other schools. This last approach is
not an ideal measure because it cannot fully control for preexisting
differences in achievement between LSL and non-LSL schools and may still
understate or overstate the total LSL-related change. However, unlike
the first approach, this third approach can capture at least some of the
LSL-related change in 2003--04 while it also allows all of the data to
be included.[^18]

Findings

Following are the results of the analyses.

-   **LSL participation.** No definitive statement can be made based on
    these data as to whether LSL was associated with improved test
    scores. Although some models showed a statistically significant
    relationship between LSL participation and improved test scores,
    models that included measures of other school reforms did not.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   In the most basic models, the percentage of students who met or
    exceeded the proficiency requirements increased significantly by
    between 2.2 and 3.8 percentage points among grantees, depending on
    the model used. The estimates were roughly similar whether or not
    the regression model included a measure of participation in LSL
    before 2003--04 (models 1 and 1a).[^19]

-   However, when other school improvement programs (Title I and Reading
    First) were added to the models, the improvement associated with LSL
    participation no longer was statistically significant at the 0.05
    level (model 1b). Thus, it may be these other reforms that best
    explain the improvement in test scores.

-   Models A, B and C all showed highly similar findings. The LSL
    coefficients were largest when 2002--03 data were used alone and
    smallest when 2002--03 data were excluded. This pattern is
    consistent with the hypothesis that there were LSL-related
    improvements in both 2003--04 and 2004--05, although the small
    magnitude of the differences is consistent with most of the
    improvement appearing in 2004--05. However, because the changes
    across the models are not statistically significant, one can neither
    be sure that the models truly differ in their findings nor attribute
    specific reasons for such differences. Also, because the two-year
    change estimates were slightly greater than the change between
    2003--04 and 2004--05, there is no evidence of a drop-off in test
    scores in the year of the grant.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   **Library features.** As noted earlier, one of the primary goals of
    the LSL program is to increase students' access to the library
    during nonschool hours, while another is to increase the resources
    available to the library, including the number of books. As the
    survey results (discussed elsewhere in this report) indicate, both
    of these variables were associated with participation in the LSL
    program. The regression analysis indicated that increasing the
    number of books per student that the library purchased was
    associated with improved student test scores not only when using
    2003--04 test scores as the baseline but also when using a
    combination of 2003--04 and 2003--04 test scores. It was not
    significant when restricting the analysis to schools with 2002--03
    test score data, possibly because of the reduced number of cases
    available for analysis. Increasing the number of hours the library
    was open was not significant at the 0.05 level in any of the models
    or approaches. There was much more variation among schools in the
    acquisition of books than in changes in the number of hours the
    library was open, and this difference may help to explain the
    stronger statistical findings with respect to books. Among grantees,
    67 percent acquired more than 1 book per student, and 11 percent
    acquired more than 5. By contrast, 51 percent of grantees made no
    change in the number of hours, and 33 percent made changes of up to
    5 hours per week.

**Differences by Instructional Level**

Exhibit 5-4 displays a set of models in which results were separated by
elementary and secondary schools (both middle and high schools). These
models provide a way of testing whether LSL participation may have
different relationships to student test scores at different grade
levels. These analyses, based on the findings from the earlier models,
were conducted using a combination of 2002--03 and 2003--04 scores to
predict 2004--05 scores (as in Exhibit 5-3); using 2002--03 scores alone
would be problematic because the reduced number of cases would not
easily support subsetting to only elementary or secondary schools. For
brevity, Exhibit 5-4 omits model 1 (because the inclusion of repeat
grantees in model 1a resulted in important changes to the estimates),
model 1b (because Early Reading First was not statistically
significant), and models 2 and 2a (because only the increase in the
number of books per student was statistically significant).

The results shown in Exhibit 5-4 suggest that LSL was associated with
levels of changes in test scores in secondary schools that were
different from those in elementary schools. In elementary schools, there
was no significant relationship between LSL participation and student
scores, whether or not adjustments for other school reform efforts were
included in the model. However, there was still a significant
relationship between an increase in the number of books and an increase
in student test scores. By contrast, in secondary schools, LSL
participation was significantly related with improved test scores in
model 1a (using 0.05 as the cutoff). However, an increase in the number
of books was not significantly related to improved test scores in
secondary scores, despite a significant relationship in elementary
schools.

**Exhibit 5-4**

**Regression Models to Estimate Association of LSL Grants With Student
Test Scores,\
Using 2002--03 Test Scores (Where Available) to Predict 2004--05 Test
Scores,**

**by Instructional Level**

  --------------------------------------- ---------- ---------- -----------
  Variable                                Estimate   Standard   *P*-value
                                                     Error      

                                                                

  ***Elementary schools***                                      

  **Model 1a---Overall test of LSL                              
  grant**                                                       

  Prior test score^a^                     1.03       0.027      0.000

  Test scores available for 2002--03      5.95       2.263      0.009

  LSL grantee                             2.21       1.580      0.162

  LSL grantee for 2 or more years         1.07       5.572      0.847

  *R*^2^ = 0.957                                                

                                                                

  **Model 1c---Overall test of LSL grant                        
  and other reforms**                                           

  Prior test score^a^                     0.99       0.031      0.000

  Test scores available for 2002--03      5.93       2.207      0.007

  LSL grantee                             1.24       1.571      0.429

  Title I                                 3.26       1.161      0.005

  *R*^2^ = 0.957                                                

                                                                

  **Model 2b---Test of library changes**                        

  Prior test score^a^                     1.01       0.032      0.000

  Test scores available for 2002--03      6.53       2.603      0.012

  Increase in books per student           0.48       0.188      0.021

  *R*^2^ = 0.957                                                

                                                                

  ***Secondary schools***                                       

  Model 1a---Overall test of LSL grant                          

  Prior test score^a^                     1.03       0.046      0.000

  Test scores available for 2002--03      4.24       2.202      0.055

  LSL grantee                             3.45       1.467      0.019

  LSL grantee for 2 or more years         -10.15     3.944      0.010

  *R*^2^ = 0.957                                                

                                                                

  Model 1c---Overall test of LSL grant                          
  and other reforms                                             

  Prior test score^a^                     1.01       0.057      0.000

  Test scores available for 2002--03      3.93       2.188      0.073

  LSL grantee                             2.78       1.424      0.052

  Title I                                 2.22       1.870      0.236

  *R*^2^ = 0.957                                                

                                                                

  Model 2b---Test of library changes                            

  Prior test score^a^                     1.00       0.044      0.000

  Test scores available for 2002--03      6.13       2.270      0.007

  Increase in books per student           0.17       0.629      0.789

  *R*^2^ = 0.957                                                
  --------------------------------------- ---------- ---------- -----------

^a^Test score is for 2002--03 when data for that year were available and
for 2003--04 otherwise.

Exhibit reads: Model 1a calculates that test scores for both grantees
and nongrantees increased by 3 percent compared with 2003--04. Both
grantees and nongrantees also shared an additional 6 percentage point
increase when compared with test scores in 2002--03. Both of these
statistics were statistically significant, with *p*-values below 0.05.
The test scores for grantees were 2.2 percentage points higher than
would be expected if they had not received the grants and were an
additional 1.1 percentage points higher if they received LSL grants for
two or more years; however, neither of these statistics were
statistically significant.

*Note:* Of the 553 schools used for the test-score analysis, 219 had
data available for 2002--03.

*Source:* National Longitudinal School-Level State Assessment Database
(2003, 2004, 2005); first evaluation, school library media center survey
questions, 1, 4 and 31.

**Discussion**

The measure of book purchases is the number of books purchased by the
library per student rather than the total number of books. Consider this
measure in context: The median enrollments were 460 for elementary
schools, 700 for middle/junior-high schools and 775 for high schools or
other schools. The median number of books added by grantees was 798 for
elementary schools, 996 for middle/junior-high schools and 747 for high
schools and other schools. From this perspective, grantees tended to add
roughly one to two books per student, and only small changes in student
literacy would be anticipated. However, from another perspective, book
purchases sometimes were much higher, up to a maximum of 15,215 books
among elementary schools, 7,411 books among middle/junior-high schools
and 7,324 books among high schools and other schools. One cannot
directly equate book purchases with participation in the LSL program:
some LSL schools purchased few books while some nongrantees purchased
many. Also, the LSL program consists of more than buying books. Still,
as data from the first-year evaluation shows, LSL participation was
associated with purchasing 1,250 additional books (520 more than
nongrantees), or about 2.9 additional books per student (1.5 more than
among nongrantees). Based on these statistics, the expected total
improvement associated with the book-purchasing component of the LSL
program would be an increase of 1.3 percentage points, and the expected
improvement with relation to nongrantees would be an increase of 0.7
percentage points.

The value of additional book purchases may vary depending on the initial
condition of the school libraries. The LSL grantees (and the comparison
schools) were all in districts with high poverty levels, which often is
correlated with lower levels of resources. Additionally, to obtain the
LSL grants, the LSL grantees needed to not only demonstrate need (for
example, through the use of a needs assessment) but also offer a plan
for addressing their needs. Thus, these libraries are likely to have
started with substantial deficits, and new purchases may have been
especially helpful at these schools in making the holdings more
interesting and relevant to the students. Because the districts were in
areas of high poverty, the students' homes also could be expected to
have a low level of resources, so students may have had fewer options to
meet their needs if their school libraries were not well equipped. By
contrast, a school library that already has substantial holdings may not
experience the same benefit from new purchases, and a school library
serving more advantaged students may not have as much influence on
students' learning.[^20] Thus, the relationship between book purchases
and student literacy could be nonlinear: for example, depending on the
school's initial starting point and the size of the purchases, the
benefit from new purchases could diminish or there could even be a
ceiling after which new purchases show little or no association with
student literacy. The LSL data are not fully adequate for investigating
this possibility because the sample was limited to eligible
(high-poverty) districts. A plot comparing the new book purchases per
student with the change in test scores reveals that there were a few
outliers with exceptionally high increases in the number of books per
student (i.e., 14 cases for which the increase was more than 10 books
per student). If the outliers are deleted, then the association between
book purchases and test scores is increased (the coefficient is
increased from 0.42 to 1.69, and the *p*-value is reduced to 0.012, with
an *R*^2^ of 0.957); this association is consistent with the benefits
from additional book purchases decreasing after the book purchases reach
a certain point.

To the extent that increases in the book collection are associated with
improved student test scores, there are several possible mechanisms that
may be important. It may be that students (a) check out more books, (b)
spend more time in the library, and/or (c) get more help from those
materials that they use (e.g., because the materials are more
up-to-date, more relevant or more interesting). Ideally, one would also
have measures of the amount of time that students spend in the library,
the number of materials they use, the ways they use those materials, the
number and types of materials they check out from the library, and the
time they spend reading at home. Most of these types of data were not
available for this study. However, Exhibit 4-19 does indicate that
grantees showed a statistically significant increase in students' use of
the library while nongrantees showed no change. These statistics are
consistent with the observed relationship between new purchases and
improved student test scores, but they are not conclusive. Also, other
changes in the libraries may be as responsible or more responsible for
the reported increases in library usage.

**Summary**

No definitive statement can be made based on these data as to whether
LSL was associated with changes in test scores. The LSL program feature
that most clearly was related to improved test results was an increase
in the number of books per student that were purchased by the library.
Some differences appeared by instructional level, with LSL grantee
status showing a stronger relationship to student test scores at the
elementary-school level and an increase in the number of books per
student showing a stronger relationship at the secondary-school level.

**Chapter 6**

**Conclusions**

The LSL grants appear to have been targeted to the neediest schools,
which were disadvantaged even when compared with other schools in
districts having high levels of poverty. After the grants, the school
libraries were brought up to a level of equality with the nongrantees
and, sometimes, to a level that surpassed them. To a large degree, these
findings echo those of the previous evaluation report.

A new analysis showed that participation in the grant was significantly
related to increases in test scores on state reading achievement
assessments. However, one cannot definitively separate LSL participation
from other school reform efforts in terms of their association with
improved test scores.

Following is a more extensive summary of the findings, organized in
terms of the evaluation questions.

Summary of Findings: How Do Districts Allocate Funds and Are They
Targeted to Schools With the Greatest Need for Improved Library
Resources?

Before receiving the grants, participating schools in grantee districts
were more disadvantaged than schools in eligible districts that had not
received grants.

-   2005--06 grantee districts often reported selecting participating
    schools based on various kinds of disadvantages at those schools: 36
    percent chose schools based on a lack of library resources, 22
    percent based on the poverty level, and 20 percent based on those
    identified for improvement under *No Child Left Behind.* (Some
    districts used several factors in selecting participating schools.)

-   Of those grantee and nongrantee districts conducting needs
    assessments, grantees were more likely than nongrantees to identify
    needs. Staffing-related needs identified by more grantees than
    nongrantees included the need for more library staff (55 percent
    versus 33 percent, respectively), more professional development (75
    percent versus 57 percent), more time for planning (64 percent
    versus 40 percent), and opening the library for more hours (75
    percent versus 41 percent). Resource-related needs identified by
    more grantees than nongrantees were more up-to-date materials (95
    percent versus 85 percent, respectively), more space (51 percent
    versus 33 percent), and more computer equipment (80 percent versus
    70 percent). For the only area in which nongrantees were more likely
    to note a need (rewiring the library), the difference (33 percent
    versus 29 percent) was not statistically significant.

-   Before the grant, grantees were more likely than nongrantees to say
    their holdings were inadequate in all four general areas that were
    examined in the survey: the overall reading/English collection
    (34 percent versus 22 percent), print materials (35 percent versus
    23 percent), video/audiovisual materials (52 percent versus 37
    percent), and computer software (57 percent versus 44 percent).

-   On average, before receiving LSL funding, the grantees were open for
    fewer days per week during the summer before the grant than
    nongrantees (2.9 versus 6.8) and slightly fewer hours during a
    typical full school week (31.5 versus 34.0). Grantees also were less
    likely to offer access outside of school hours in 2005 (39 percent
    versus 54 percent).

During the grant year, a large number of changes appeared among the
grantees while relatively little change occurred among the nongrantees.
Following are some of the major changes.

-   Grantees roughly tripled their expenditures on books and
    subscriptions as well as computer hardware while nongrantees showed
    little change.

-   Of those that conducted needs assessments, the grantees were often
    more likely than the nongrantees to make changes. These changes
    include getting more up-to-date materials (92 percent versus 78
    percent, respectively), providing more time for planning (39 percent
    versus 21 percent), getting more computer equipment (60 percent
    versus 49 percent), increasing professional development (68 percent
    versus 41 percent), and increasing the hours the library is open (62
    percent versus 24 percent).

-   Grantees started out with poorer holdings than nongrantees but ended
    with equal or higher percentages describing their holdings as
    adequate or excellent. For example, the percentage of grantees that
    considered their print materials supporting the English
    instructional program to be adequate or excellent increased from 65
    percent before the grant to 89 percent after the grant. In
    comparison, the nongrantees showed no significant difference during
    the same time period (77 percent versus 79 percent).

-   Grantees often were more likely than nongrantees to provide new or
    expanded library services. These expanded services include library
    staff members assisting with research projects (42 percent versus 24
    percent, respectively), working on curriculum issues (40 percent
    versus 23 percent), participating in team meetings (36 percent
    versus 23 percent), coordinating professional development on
    technology (42 percent versus 24 percent), and providing instruction
    on information skills (52 percent versus 36 percent). Some other
    changes specifically relating to reading/English are working with
    classroom teachers on selecting resources (49 percent versus 33
    percent), holding family literacy nights (38 percent versus
    13 percent), and holding after-school programs that offer an
    orientation to the library (34 percent versus 8 percent).

Summary of Findings: How Are Funds Used (e.g., to Buy Books, Improve
Technology, Increase Library Hours, or Provide Professional Development
for Library and Reading Staff Members, etc.)?

In 2005--06, program funds were spent as follows: 57 percent on
resources, including books; 20 percent on acquiring advanced technology;
5 percent on professional development; 8 percent on operating the
library media center during nonschool hours; 3 percent on linkages to
the Internet and other networks; and 8 percent on other areas.

Summary of Findings: What Is the Relationship Between Participation in
This Program and Staff Collaboration and Coordination?

Grantees were more likely than nongrantees to (a) establish new programs
or expand existing programs to have library media staff members assist
teachers in designing, implementing and evaluating research projects for
students (42 percent versus 24 percent, respectively); (b) work with the
principal and/or teachers on curriculum issues (40 percent versus 23
percent); (c) participate in team meetings (36 percent versus 23
percent); and (d) coordinate training programs about integrating
educational technology into the curriculum for teachers and other staff
members (42 percent versus 24 percent).

Summary of Findings: How Do Reading Achievement Scores Vary in Schools
That Received Grants for 1, 2 or 3 Years Compared With Matched
Comparison Schools That Have Not Received Grants?

The percentage of students who met or exceeded the proficiency
requirements on state reading assessments increased by an extra 2.7
percentage points among grantees, a statistically significant increase.
Some or all of this increase, however, may be associated with other
school reform efforts or preexisting differences in achievement between
LSL and non-LSL schools rather than with LSL participation. In addition,
increasing the number of books was associated with significant increases
in test scores. Because of the lack of a true experimental design, these
findings cannot support causal inferences that attribute observed
differences in student reading achievement between LSL and non-LSL
schools to the LSL program.

References

Baumbach, Donna J. 2002. *Making the grade: The status of school library
media centers in the sunshine state and how they contribute to student
achievement.* Spring, Tex.: Hi Willow Research and Publishing.

Baxter, Susan J., and Ann Walker Smalley. 2003, January. *The results of
the school library media program census.* Saint Paul, Minn.: Metronet.

Burgin, Robert, and Pauletta Brown Bracy. 2003. *An essential
connection: How quality school library media programs improve student
achievement in North Carolina.* Spring, Tex.: Hi Willow Research and
Publishing.

Illinois School Library Media Association (ISLMA). 2005, February 18.
*Powerful libraries make powerful learners: The Illinois study. Fact
sheet.*
http://ns116.webmasters.com/\*islma.org/httpdocs/pdf/ILStudyFactSheet.pdf
(accessed January 9, 2009).

Lance, Keith Curry, Marcia J. Rodney and Christine Hamilton-Pennell.
2000a. *How school librarians help kids achieve standards: The second
Colorado study, executive summary.* Colorado Department of Education.
Spring, Tex.: Hi Willow Research and Publishing.

---------. 2000b. *Measuring up to standards: The impact of school
library programs and information literacy in Pennsylvania schools.*
Greensburg, Pa.: Pennsylvania Citizens for Better Libraries.

---------. 2002. *How school librarians improve outcomes for children:
The New Mexico study, executive summary.* Santa Fe, N. Mex.: New Mexico
State Library.

Lance, Keith Curry, Lynda Wellborn and Christine Hamilton-Pennell. 1992.
*The impact of school library media centers on academic achievement.*
Denver, Colo.: State Library and Adult Education Office, Colorado
Department of Education.

Lonsdale, Michele. 2003. *Impact of school libraries on student
achievement: A review of the research.* Melbourne, Australia: Australian
Council for Educational Research.

Rodney, Marcia J., Keith Curry Lance and Christine Hamilton-Pennell.
2003. *The impact of Michigan school librarians on academic achievement:
Kids who have libraries succeed.* Lansing, Mich.: Library of Michigan.

Scholastic Library Publishing. 2008. *School libraries work!* Research
Foundation Paper.
http://librarypublishing.scholastic.com/content/stores/LibraryStore/pages/images/SLW3_2008.pdf
(accessed January 9, 2009).

Smith, Ester G. 2006, January. *Student learning through Wisconsin
school library media centers: Library media specialist report.* Austin,
Tex.: EGS Research & Consulting.

appendix a

detailed tables

**Exhibit A-1**

**Percentage of Districts Using Various Methods to Select Schools for
Participation in the Grant and to\
Distribute Grant Money to the Schools, by District Characteristics,
2005--06 School Year**

<table style="width:100%;">
<colgroup>
<col style="width: 14%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 0%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 0%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 0%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 0%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 0%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
</colgroup>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td rowspan="2">District Characteristic</td>
<td rowspan="2">District Had Only One School</td>
<td colspan="8">Selecting Schools<sup>a</sup></td>
<td colspan="7">Distributing Funds Among Schools</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>All Schools Selected</td>
<td colspan="2">Grade Level</td>
<td>Based on Poverty</td>
<td>Based on Library Resources</td>
<td>Identified for Improvement Under <em>NCLB</em></td>
<td>Other</td>
<td colspan="3">All Schools Equal</td>
<td>Per-Pupil Basis</td>
<td colspan="2">Purchasing at District Level</td>
<td colspan="2">Other</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Percentage of all districts</td>
<td>14</td>
<td colspan="2">53</td>
<td>26</td>
<td>22</td>
<td>36</td>
<td>20</td>
<td>9</td>
<td colspan="2">31</td>
<td colspan="3">19</td>
<td colspan="2">16</td>
<td>34</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>District enrollment size</td>
<td></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><blockquote>
<p>Fewer than 500</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td>59</td>
<td colspan="2">84</td>
<td>16</td>
<td>16</td>
<td>33</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>0</td>
<td colspan="2">27</td>
<td colspan="3">6</td>
<td colspan="2">34</td>
<td>32</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><blockquote>
<p>500–1,999</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td>8</td>
<td colspan="2">58</td>
<td>38</td>
<td>26</td>
<td>34</td>
<td>17</td>
<td>4</td>
<td colspan="2">27</td>
<td colspan="3">20</td>
<td colspan="2">15</td>
<td>38</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><blockquote>
<p>2,000 or more</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td>0</td>
<td colspan="2">53</td>
<td>26</td>
<td>14</td>
<td>31</td>
<td>12</td>
<td>13</td>
<td colspan="2">28</td>
<td colspan="3">30</td>
<td colspan="2">7</td>
<td>35</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Urbanicity</td>
<td></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><blockquote>
<p>City</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td>17</td>
<td colspan="2">44</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>29</td>
<td>50</td>
<td>42</td>
<td>14</td>
<td colspan="2">47</td>
<td colspan="3">6</td>
<td colspan="2">17</td>
<td>29</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><blockquote>
<p>Urban fringe</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td>0</td>
<td colspan="2">56</td>
<td>28</td>
<td>28</td>
<td>44</td>
<td>12</td>
<td>16</td>
<td colspan="2">24</td>
<td colspan="3">29</td>
<td colspan="2">0</td>
<td>47</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><blockquote>
<p>Town</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td>8</td>
<td colspan="2">66</td>
<td>34</td>
<td>26</td>
<td>34</td>
<td>17</td>
<td>0</td>
<td colspan="2">32</td>
<td colspan="3">30</td>
<td colspan="2">0</td>
<td>38</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><blockquote>
<p>Rural</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td>18</td>
<td colspan="2">51</td>
<td>33</td>
<td>16</td>
<td>30</td>
<td>13</td>
<td>9</td>
<td colspan="2">26</td>
<td colspan="3">19</td>
<td colspan="2">24</td>
<td>31</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Region</td>
<td></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><blockquote>
<p>Northeast</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td>23</td>
<td colspan="2">31</td>
<td>35</td>
<td>31</td>
<td>54</td>
<td>45</td>
<td>7</td>
<td colspan="2">40</td>
<td colspan="3">21</td>
<td colspan="2">23</td>
<td>16</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><blockquote>
<p>Southeast</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td>0</td>
<td colspan="2">60</td>
<td>29</td>
<td>23</td>
<td>35</td>
<td>17</td>
<td>6</td>
<td colspan="2">24</td>
<td colspan="3">17</td>
<td colspan="2">11</td>
<td>48</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><blockquote>
<p>Central</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td>18</td>
<td colspan="2">56</td>
<td>11</td>
<td>11</td>
<td>22</td>
<td>11</td>
<td>11</td>
<td colspan="2">64</td>
<td colspan="3">0</td>
<td colspan="2">18</td>
<td>18</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><blockquote>
<p>West</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td>16</td>
<td colspan="2">59</td>
<td>24</td>
<td>21</td>
<td>34</td>
<td>12</td>
<td>13</td>
<td colspan="2">19</td>
<td colspan="3">27</td>
<td colspan="2">13</td>
<td>41</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Amount of grant</td>
<td></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><blockquote>
<p>Up to $100,000</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td>36</td>
<td colspan="2">57</td>
<td>15</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>14</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>14</td>
<td colspan="2">38</td>
<td colspan="3">9</td>
<td colspan="2">27</td>
<td>26</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><blockquote>
<p>$101,000–$200,000</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td>15</td>
<td colspan="2">46</td>
<td>44</td>
<td>28</td>
<td>54</td>
<td>14</td>
<td>11</td>
<td colspan="2">20</td>
<td colspan="3">16</td>
<td colspan="2">19</td>
<td>44</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><blockquote>
<p>More than $200,000</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td>7</td>
<td colspan="2">56</td>
<td>17</td>
<td>23</td>
<td>30</td>
<td>27</td>
<td>8</td>
<td colspan="2">37</td>
<td colspan="3">24</td>
<td colspan="2">10</td>
<td>29</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>

*NCLB* = *No Child Left Behind*.

^a^Districts could use more than one method to select schools for
participation.

*Source:* Second evaluation, district performance report questions 1 and
14.

**Exhibit A-2**

**Percentage of Districts Using Various Personnel to Decide Which
Schools\
to Serve, by District Characteristics, 2005--06 School Year**

<table>
<colgroup>
<col style="width: 19%" />
<col style="width: 10%" />
<col style="width: 10%" />
<col style="width: 9%" />
<col style="width: 10%" />
<col style="width: 9%" />
<col style="width: 9%" />
<col style="width: 9%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
</colgroup>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td>District Characteristic</td>
<td>District School Library Coordinator</td>
<td>Reading Curriculum Coordinator</td>
<td>Superin-tendent(s)</td>
<td>Principal(s)</td>
<td>School Library Media Specialists</td>
<td>Reading Specialists</td>
<td>Classroom Teachers</td>
<td>Parents</td>
<td>Other</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Percentage of all districts</td>
<td>52</td>
<td>40</td>
<td>82</td>
<td>77</td>
<td>84</td>
<td>43</td>
<td>47</td>
<td>35</td>
<td>32</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>District enrollment size</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><blockquote>
<p>Fewer than 500</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td>46</td>
<td>40</td>
<td>81</td>
<td>81</td>
<td>80</td>
<td>74</td>
<td>81</td>
<td>53</td>
<td>47</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><blockquote>
<p>500–1,999</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td>31</td>
<td>28</td>
<td>93</td>
<td>77</td>
<td>89</td>
<td>42</td>
<td>54</td>
<td>39</td>
<td>19</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><blockquote>
<p>2,000 or more</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td>62</td>
<td>57</td>
<td>79</td>
<td>81</td>
<td>87</td>
<td>37</td>
<td>33</td>
<td>29</td>
<td>33</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Urbanicity</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><blockquote>
<p>City</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td>70</td>
<td>35</td>
<td>66</td>
<td>65</td>
<td>72</td>
<td>30</td>
<td>42</td>
<td>42</td>
<td>28</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><blockquote>
<p>Urban fringe</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td>58</td>
<td>55</td>
<td>84</td>
<td>100</td>
<td>84</td>
<td>43</td>
<td>43</td>
<td>43</td>
<td>28</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><blockquote>
<p>Town</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td>54</td>
<td>39</td>
<td>77</td>
<td>69</td>
<td>85</td>
<td>31</td>
<td>23</td>
<td>15</td>
<td>38</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><blockquote>
<p>Rural</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td>42</td>
<td>40</td>
<td>89</td>
<td>79</td>
<td>89</td>
<td>52</td>
<td>57</td>
<td>37</td>
<td>31</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Region</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><blockquote>
<p>Northeast</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td>49</td>
<td>49</td>
<td>74</td>
<td>79</td>
<td>73</td>
<td>36</td>
<td>36</td>
<td>30</td>
<td>40</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><blockquote>
<p>Southeast</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td>53</td>
<td>48</td>
<td>88</td>
<td>77</td>
<td>94</td>
<td>46</td>
<td>40</td>
<td>28</td>
<td>29</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><blockquote>
<p>Central</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td>18</td>
<td>18</td>
<td>82</td>
<td>64</td>
<td>82</td>
<td>55</td>
<td>64</td>
<td>36</td>
<td>27</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><blockquote>
<p>West</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td>65</td>
<td>40</td>
<td>83</td>
<td>81</td>
<td>86</td>
<td>41</td>
<td>50</td>
<td>41</td>
<td>30</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Amount of grant</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><blockquote>
<p>Up to $100,000</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td>46</td>
<td>27</td>
<td>55</td>
<td>91</td>
<td>100</td>
<td>63</td>
<td>63</td>
<td>36</td>
<td>28</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><blockquote>
<p>$101,000 to $200,000</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td>44</td>
<td>40</td>
<td>83</td>
<td>68</td>
<td>79</td>
<td>31</td>
<td>46</td>
<td>34</td>
<td>41</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><blockquote>
<p>More than $200,000</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td>58</td>
<td>45</td>
<td>88</td>
<td>78</td>
<td>83</td>
<td>45</td>
<td>42</td>
<td>35</td>
<td>27</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>

*Source:* Second evaluation, district performance report question 2.

**Exhibit A-3**

**Percentage of Districts Using Various Personnel to Decide How the
Grant Funds Should be Spent,\
by District Characteristics, 2005--06 School Year**

<table>
<colgroup>
<col style="width: 17%" />
<col style="width: 10%" />
<col style="width: 10%" />
<col style="width: 8%" />
<col style="width: 10%" />
<col style="width: 9%" />
<col style="width: 9%" />
<col style="width: 9%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
</colgroup>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td>District Characteristic</td>
<td>District School Library Coordinator</td>
<td>Reading Curriculum Coordinator</td>
<td>Superin-tendent</td>
<td>Principal(s)</td>
<td>School Library Media Specialists</td>
<td>Reading Specialists</td>
<td>Classroom Teachers</td>
<td>Parents</td>
<td>Other</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Percentage of all districts</td>
<td>54</td>
<td>45</td>
<td>54</td>
<td>73</td>
<td>95</td>
<td>60</td>
<td>82</td>
<td>45</td>
<td>48</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>District enrollment size</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><blockquote>
<p>Fewer than 500</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td>46</td>
<td>40</td>
<td>73</td>
<td>86</td>
<td>94</td>
<td>68</td>
<td>87</td>
<td>47</td>
<td>46</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><blockquote>
<p>500–1,999</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td>42</td>
<td>39</td>
<td>66</td>
<td>84</td>
<td>92</td>
<td>70</td>
<td>93</td>
<td>43</td>
<td>46</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><blockquote>
<p>2,000 or more</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td>62</td>
<td>56</td>
<td>41</td>
<td>69</td>
<td>100</td>
<td>54</td>
<td>81</td>
<td>52</td>
<td>51</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Urbanicity</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><blockquote>
<p>City</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td>52</td>
<td>35</td>
<td>36</td>
<td>48</td>
<td>88</td>
<td>47</td>
<td>53</td>
<td>30</td>
<td>52</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><blockquote>
<p>Urban fringe</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td>58</td>
<td>39</td>
<td>55</td>
<td>100</td>
<td>100</td>
<td>56</td>
<td>100</td>
<td>39</td>
<td>73</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><blockquote>
<p>Town</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td>54</td>
<td>62</td>
<td>45</td>
<td>68</td>
<td>92</td>
<td>62</td>
<td>92</td>
<td>31</td>
<td>46</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><blockquote>
<p>Rural</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td>54</td>
<td>45</td>
<td>65</td>
<td>79</td>
<td>97</td>
<td>67</td>
<td>87</td>
<td>58</td>
<td>42</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Region</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><blockquote>
<p>Northeast</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td>44</td>
<td>54</td>
<td>36</td>
<td>62</td>
<td>95</td>
<td>73</td>
<td>74</td>
<td>37</td>
<td>58</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><blockquote>
<p>Southeast</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td>58</td>
<td>52</td>
<td>47</td>
<td>64</td>
<td>100</td>
<td>58</td>
<td>82</td>
<td>57</td>
<td>53</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><blockquote>
<p>Central</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td>18</td>
<td>36</td>
<td>55</td>
<td>73</td>
<td>91</td>
<td>73</td>
<td>91</td>
<td>45</td>
<td>36</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><blockquote>
<p>West</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td>71</td>
<td>40</td>
<td>69</td>
<td>84</td>
<td>94</td>
<td>51</td>
<td>84</td>
<td>43</td>
<td>44</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Amount of grant</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><blockquote>
<p>Up to $100,000</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td>37</td>
<td>27</td>
<td>36</td>
<td>62</td>
<td>100</td>
<td>64</td>
<td>73</td>
<td>37</td>
<td>45</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><blockquote>
<p>$101,000 to $200,000</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td>37</td>
<td>44</td>
<td>47</td>
<td>76</td>
<td>92</td>
<td>47</td>
<td>85</td>
<td>52</td>
<td>60</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><blockquote>
<p>More than $200,000</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td>70</td>
<td>51</td>
<td>64</td>
<td>74</td>
<td>95</td>
<td>68</td>
<td>83</td>
<td>43</td>
<td>42</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>

*Source:* Second evaluation, district performance report question 13.

**Exhibit A-4**

**Percentage of Districts Using Various Personnel to Decide Which
Schools to Serve and How Grant Funds Should be Spent, by Personnel Type,
2003--04, 2004--05, and 2005--06 School Years**

  ---------------------------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------
  Personnel Involved in the    Which                            How Grant             
  Decision                     Schools to                       Funds                 
                               Serve                            Should Be             
                                                                Spent                 

                               2003--04   2004--05   2005--06   2003--04   2004--05   2005--06

                                                                                      

  District school library      69         57         52         60         69         54
  coordinator                                                                         

  Reading curriculum           44         51         40         36         47         45
  coordinator                                                                         

  Superintendent(s)            75         78         82         56         66         54

  Principal(s)                 72         65         77         72         70         73

  School librarians            89         76         84         94         93         95

  Reading specialists          31         36         43         45         54         60

  Classroom teachers           39         36         47         90         73         82

  Parents                      23         29         35         39         52         45

  Other                        30         24         32         26         35         48
  ---------------------------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------

*Source:* First and second evaluations, district performance report
questions 2 and 13.

**Exhibit A-5**

**Percentage of Grant Funding Spent by Category,\
by District Characteristics, 2005--06 School Year**

+------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| District         | A     | A     | Li    | Pr    | Oper  | Other |
| Characteristic   | cquis | cquis | nkage | ofess | ating |       |
|                  | ition | ition | to    | ional | C     |       |
|                  | of    | of    | Int   | D     | enter |       |
|                  | Adv   | All   | ernet | evelo | in    |       |
|                  | anced | Other | and   | pment | Nons  |       |
|                  | Techn | Reso  | Other |       | chool |       |
|                  | ology | urces | Net   |       | Hours |       |
|                  |       |       | works |       |       |       |
+------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
|                  |       |       |       |       |       |       |
+------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| Percentage of    | 20    | 57    | 3     | 5     | 8     | 8     |
| all districts    |       |       |       |       |       |       |
+------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
|                  |       |       |       |       |       |       |
+------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| District         |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| enrollment size  |       |       |       |       |       |       |
+------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| > Fewer than 500 | 20    | 56    | 4     | 3     | 5     | 12    |
+------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| > 500--1,999     | 26    | 45    | 4     | 5     | 11    | 9     |
+------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| > 2,000 or more  | 19    | 60    | 3     | 3     | 8     | 6     |
+------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
|                  |       |       |       |       |       |       |
+------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| Urbanicity       |       |       |       |       |       |       |
+------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| > City           | 6     | 73    | 1     | 6     | 8     | 6     |
+------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| > Urban fringe   | 20    | 64    | 1     | 5     | 7     | 4     |
+------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| > Town           | 25    | 52    | 6     | 4     | 5     | 9     |
+------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| > Rural          | 25    | 49    | 4     | 4     | 9     | 9     |
+------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
|                  |       |       |       |       |       |       |
+------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| Region           |       |       |       |       |       |       |
+------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| > Northeast      | 14    | 68    | 1     | 6     | 6     | 5     |
+------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| > Southeast      | 20    | 56    | 5     | 2     | 10    | 7     |
+------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| > Central        | 19    | 56    | 1     | 3     | 12    | 10    |
+------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| > West           | 23    | 52    | 4     | 6     | 6     | 9     |
+------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
|                  |       |       |       |       |       |       |
+------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| Amount of grant  |       |       |       |       |       |       |
+------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| > Up to          | 21    | 60    | 2     | 4     | 10    | 4     |
| > \$100,000      |       |       |       |       |       |       |
+------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| > \$101,000 to   | 24    | 56    | 2     | 3     | 8     | 7     |
| > \$200,000      |       |       |       |       |       |       |
+------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| > More than      | 18    | 57    | 4     | 5     | 8     | 8     |
| > \$200,000      |       |       |       |       |       |       |
+------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+

*Note:* Percents may not add to 100 because of rounding.

*Source:* Second evaluation, district performance report question 12.

**Exhibit A-6**

**Total Grant Funding and Amount and Percent of Funding Spent, by
Category,\
2004--05 and 2005--06 School Years**

  ------------------------------ ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------
  Spending Category              2004--05                  2005--06     

                                 Amount       Percentage   Amount       Percentage

                                                                        

  Total funding in dollars       18,073,674   100          18,107,163   100

  Acquisition of advanced        4,125,337    23           3,555,291    20
  technology                                                            

  Acquisition of all other       9,336,700    52           10,363,844   57
  resources                                                             

  Linkage to Internet and other  293,795      2            575,885      3
  networks                                                              

  Professional development       690,917      4            816,315      5

  Operating center in nonschool  1,538,808    9            1,411,741    8
  hours                                                                 

  Other                          2,088,116    12           1,384,089    8
  ------------------------------ ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------

*Note:* Detail may not add to totals because of rounding.

*Source:* Second evaluation, district performance report question 12.

**Exhibit A-7**

**Mean Expenditures in School Libraries and Percentage Change of Those
Expenditures\
Between the 2004--05 and 2005--06 School Years, by School
Characteristics**

<table>
<colgroup>
<col style="width: 18%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
</colgroup>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td rowspan="2">School Characteristic</td>
<td colspan="3">Materials Such as Books and Subscriptions</td>
<td colspan="3">Computer Hardware, Other Than Communications
Equipment</td>
<td colspan="3">Audiovisual Equipment</td>
<td colspan="3">Total<sup>a</sup></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>2004–05</td>
<td>2005–06</td>
<td>Percentage Change<sup>b</sup></td>
<td>2004–05</td>
<td>2005–06</td>
<td>Percentage change<sup>2</sup></td>
<td>2004–05</td>
<td>2005–06</td>
<td>Percentage change<sup>2</sup></td>
<td>2004–05</td>
<td>2005–06</td>
<td>Percentage change<sup>2</sup></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Mean of all schools</td>
<td>7,332.4</td>
<td>8,681.6</td>
<td>18</td>
<td>1,861.8</td>
<td>1,976.6</td>
<td>6</td>
<td>537.6</td>
<td>710.4</td>
<td>32</td>
<td>9,478.2</td>
<td>11,475.6</td>
<td>21</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Nongrantees</td>
<td>7,315.2</td>
<td>8,085.0</td>
<td>11</td>
<td>1,871.3</td>
<td>1,837.6</td>
<td>-2</td>
<td>525.7</td>
<td>672.7</td>
<td>28</td>
<td>9,446.2</td>
<td>10,673.0</td>
<td>13</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Grantees</td>
<td>7,834.6</td>
<td>26,007.5*</td>
<td>232</td>
<td>1,595.4</td>
<td>5,959.3*</td>
<td>274</td>
<td>872.5*</td>
<td>1,820.8</td>
<td>109</td>
<td>10,404.3</td>
<td>34,767.6*</td>
<td>234</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><blockquote>
<p>Received grant for two or more years</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td>9,467.6</td>
<td>24,367.0</td>
<td>157</td>
<td>2,581.0</td>
<td>4,970.5</td>
<td>93</td>
<td>290.5</td>
<td>907.1</td>
<td>212</td>
<td>13,457.9</td>
<td>31,925.5</td>
<td>137</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>School enrollment size</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><blockquote>
<p>400 or fewer</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td>5,559.5</td>
<td>22,269.8</td>
<td>301</td>
<td>847.3</td>
<td>5,636.2</td>
<td>565</td>
<td>350.6</td>
<td>1,316.4</td>
<td>275</td>
<td>6,698.4</td>
<td>29,988.4</td>
<td>348</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><blockquote>
<p>401–700</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td>9,399.7</td>
<td>27,082.4</td>
<td>188</td>
<td>2,004.0</td>
<td>5,137.8</td>
<td>156</td>
<td>649.1</td>
<td>1,428.2</td>
<td>120</td>
<td>12,370.6</td>
<td>35,084.3</td>
<td>184</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><blockquote>
<p>More than 700</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td>11,513.5</td>
<td>35,641.7</td>
<td>210</td>
<td>3,094.4</td>
<td>9,319.8</td>
<td>201</td>
<td>3,362.5</td>
<td>4,740.3</td>
<td>41</td>
<td>18,213.4</td>
<td>50,110.6</td>
<td>175</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>School level</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><blockquote>
<p>Elementary</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td>7,026.2</td>
<td>24,285.5</td>
<td>246</td>
<td>1,452.7</td>
<td>4,858.1</td>
<td>234</td>
<td>303.0</td>
<td>1,324.5</td>
<td>337</td>
<td>8,776.0</td>
<td>31,378.2</td>
<td>258</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><blockquote>
<p>Middle/junior high</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td>9,219.9</td>
<td>31,956.9</td>
<td>247</td>
<td>1,548.0</td>
<td>8,293.3</td>
<td>436</td>
<td>3,818.6</td>
<td>4,626.6</td>
<td>21</td>
<td>14,669.0</td>
<td>45,503.5</td>
<td>210</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><blockquote>
<p>High school/other</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td>10,397.4</td>
<td>29,589.2</td>
<td>185</td>
<td>2,275.6</td>
<td>9,293.6</td>
<td>308</td>
<td>1,441.4</td>
<td>2,066.0</td>
<td>43</td>
<td>14,733.1</td>
<td>41,912.8</td>
<td>184</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Urbanicity</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><blockquote>
<p>City</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td>7,435.7</td>
<td>22,090.5</td>
<td>197</td>
<td>1,649.3</td>
<td>3,242.9</td>
<td>97</td>
<td>1,235.0</td>
<td>1,218.5</td>
<td>-1</td>
<td>10,438.6</td>
<td>27,408.1</td>
<td>163</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><blockquote>
<p>Urban fringe</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td>7,356.6</td>
<td>24,006.0</td>
<td>226</td>
<td>1,770.3</td>
<td>3,854.6</td>
<td>118</td>
<td>263.7</td>
<td>1,446.0</td>
<td>448</td>
<td>9,884.7</td>
<td>29,398.8</td>
<td>197</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><blockquote>
<p>Town</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td>8,327.0</td>
<td>27,492.2</td>
<td>230</td>
<td>2,266.9</td>
<td>7,650.2</td>
<td>237</td>
<td>445.4</td>
<td>1,640.9</td>
<td>268</td>
<td>11,023.9</td>
<td>38,010.1</td>
<td>245</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><blockquote>
<p>Rural</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td>8,276.7</td>
<td>30,588.0</td>
<td>270</td>
<td>1,148.9</td>
<td>9,121.4</td>
<td>694</td>
<td>978.8</td>
<td>2,707.0</td>
<td>177</td>
<td>10,349.1</td>
<td>43,384.9</td>
<td>319</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><blockquote>
<p>Free/reduced-price lunch eligibility</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><blockquote>
<p>Less than 50 percent</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td>12,187.2</td>
<td>24,661.8</td>
<td>102</td>
<td>1,854.1</td>
<td>5,510.5</td>
<td>197</td>
<td>2,317.2</td>
<td>1,811.1</td>
<td>-22</td>
<td>16,747.8</td>
<td>32,647.3</td>
<td>95</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><blockquote>
<p>50 percent or more</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td>6,385.0</td>
<td>26,481.2</td>
<td>315</td>
<td>1,501.2</td>
<td>6,125.9</td>
<td>308</td>
<td>351.2</td>
<td>1,824.4</td>
<td>419</td>
<td>8,176.9</td>
<td>35,551.6</td>
<td>335</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Total expenditures per student</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><blockquote>
<p>$12.00 or less</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td>2,661.2</td>
<td>28,202.2</td>
<td>960</td>
<td>28.7</td>
<td>5,928.4</td>
<td>1,020</td>
<td>83.5</td>
<td>1,599.8</td>
<td>1816</td>
<td>2,714.8</td>
<td>36,706.7</td>
<td>1,252</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><blockquote>
<p>$12.01–$20.00</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td>6,122.9</td>
<td>26,694.5</td>
<td>336</td>
<td>1,287.7</td>
<td>4,596.5</td>
<td>257</td>
<td>398.9</td>
<td>1,901.2</td>
<td>377</td>
<td>8,134.8</td>
<td>34,754.8</td>
<td>327</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><blockquote>
<p>More than $20.00</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td>14,975.0</td>
<td>23,527.1</td>
<td>57</td>
<td>3,784.6</td>
<td>7,001.6</td>
<td>85</td>
<td>2,211.5</td>
<td>2,168.8</td>
<td>-2</td>
<td>21,331.0</td>
<td>32,954.3</td>
<td>54</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Total FTE staff</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><blockquote>
<p>1.25 or less</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td>6,439.3</td>
<td>25,855.3</td>
<td>302</td>
<td>1,153.3</td>
<td>6,211.0</td>
<td>439</td>
<td>372.0</td>
<td>1,906.6</td>
<td>413</td>
<td>8,034.0</td>
<td>34,928.2</td>
<td>335</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><blockquote>
<p>1.26–1.75</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td>8,997.0</td>
<td>22,150.3</td>
<td>146</td>
<td>2,250.9</td>
<td>4,116.6</td>
<td>83</td>
<td>562.2</td>
<td>779.6</td>
<td>39</td>
<td>12,147.0</td>
<td>27,902.0</td>
<td>130</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><blockquote>
<p>More than 1.75</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td>10,862.0</td>
<td>31,675.0</td>
<td>192</td>
<td>2,194.4</td>
<td>7,513.7</td>
<td>242</td>
<td>2,955.4</td>
<td>2,933.9</td>
<td>-1</td>
<td>16,362.1</td>
<td>43,796.4</td>
<td>168</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>

FTE = full-time equivalent.

*Note:* The asterisks (\*) indicate that there is a statistically
significant difference (i.e., *p*-value ≤ .05) between grantee and
nongrantee school libraries.

^a^The totals may not be equal to the sum of the previous columns
because only schools that provided answers in all three areas were
included when the totals were calculated.

^b^Statistical significance was not calculated for percentage change.

*Source:* Second evaluation, school library media center survey
questions 33, 34, and 35.

**Exhibit A-8**

**Mean Expenditures for All Materials in the 2004--05 and 2005--06
School Years and Distribution\
of 2005--06 Expenditures Among Selected Materials, by School
Characteristics**

+---------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+------+
| School        | To  | To  | Dis |     |     |     |     |      |
| C             | tal | tal | tri |     |     |     |     |      |
| haracteristic | in\ | in\ | but |     |     |     |     |      |
|               | 20  | 20  | ion |     |     |     |     |      |
|               | 04- | 05- | of  |     |     |     |     |      |
|               | -05 | -06 | 20  |     |     |     |     |      |
|               |     |     | 05- |     |     |     |     |      |
|               |     |     | -06 |     |     |     |     |      |
|               |     |     | Exp |     |     |     |     |      |
|               |     |     | end |     |     |     |     |      |
|               |     |     | itu |     |     |     |     |      |
|               |     |     | res |     |     |     |     |      |
|               |     |     | (P  |     |     |     |     |      |
|               |     |     | erc |     |     |     |     |      |
|               |     |     | ent |     |     |     |     |      |
|               |     |     | age |     |     |     |     |      |
|               |     |     | of  |     |     |     |     |      |
|               |     |     | Tot |     |     |     |     |      |
|               |     |     | al) |     |     |     |     |      |
+---------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+------+
|               |     |     | Bo  | Vi  | CD- | Pr  | E   | O    |
|               |     |     | oks | deo | ROM | int | lec | ther |
|               |     |     |     | Mat | Tit | or  | tro |      |
|               |     |     |     | eri | les | Mic | nic |      |
|               |     |     |     | als |     | rof | S   |      |
|               |     |     |     |     |     | orm | ubs |      |
|               |     |     |     |     |     | S   | cri |      |
|               |     |     |     |     |     | ubs | pti |      |
|               |     |     |     |     |     | cri | ons |      |
|               |     |     |     |     |     | pti |     |      |
|               |     |     |     |     |     | ons |     |      |
+---------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+------+
|               |     |     |     |     |     |     |     |      |
+---------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+------+
| Mean of all   | 7   | 8   | 6   | 6.7 | 0.8 | 8.5 | 4.4 | 10.3 |
| schools       | ,33 | ,68 | 9.3 |     |     |     |     |      |
|               | 2.4 | 1.6 |     |     |     |     |     |      |
+---------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+------+
|               |     |     |     |     |     |     |     |      |
+---------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+------+
| Nongrantees   | 7   | 8   | 6   | 6.  | 0.8 | 8.  | 4.  | 10.3 |
|               | ,31 | ,08 | 8.9 | 8\* |     | 7\* | 5\* |      |
|               | 5.2 | 5.0 |     |     |     |     |     |      |
+---------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+------+
| Grantees      | 7   | 2   | 80. | 3.4 | 1.  | 3.0 | 2.4 | 9.7  |
|               | ,83 | 6,0 | 2\* |     | 3\* |     |     |      |
|               | 4.6 | 07. |     |     |     |     |     |      |
|               |     | 5\* |     |     |     |     |     |      |
+---------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+------+
| > Received    | 9   | 24  | 8   | 2.6 | 1.2 | 1.5 | 0.8 | 9.4  |
| > grant for   | ,46 | ,36 | 4.5 |     |     |     |     |      |
| > two or more | 7.6 | 7.0 |     |     |     |     |     |      |
| > years       |     |     |     |     |     |     |     |      |
+---------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+------+
|               |     |     |     |     |     |     |     |      |
+---------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+------+
| School        |     |     |     |     |     |     |     |      |
| enrollment    |     |     |     |     |     |     |     |      |
| size          |     |     |     |     |     |     |     |      |
+---------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+------+
| > 400 or      | 5   | 22  | 7   | 3.0 | 1.2 | 2.9 | 2.6 | 12.6 |
| > fewer       | ,55 | ,26 | 7.7 |     |     |     |     |      |
|               | 9.5 | 9.8 |     |     |     |     |     |      |
+---------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+------+
| > 401--700    | 9   | 27  | 8   | 3.9 | 0.6 | 3.5 | 2.5 | 7.1  |
|               | ,39 | ,08 | 2.4 |     |     |     |     |      |
|               | 9.7 | 2.4 |     |     |     |     |     |      |
+---------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+------+
| > More than   | 11  | 35  | 8   | 3.2 | 3.6 | 1.7 | 1.6 | 8.0  |
| > 700         | ,51 | ,64 | 1.9 |     |     |     |     |      |
|               | 3.5 | 1.7 |     |     |     |     |     |      |
+---------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+------+
|               |     |     |     |     |     |     |     |      |
+---------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+------+
| School level  |     |     |     |     |     |     |     |      |
+---------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+------+
| > Elementary  | 7   | 24  | 8   | 3.0 | 1.0 | 2.8 | 2.0 | 8.1  |
|               | ,02 | ,28 | 3.2 |     |     |     |     |      |
|               | 6.2 | 5.5 |     |     |     |     |     |      |
+---------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+------+
| >             | 9   | 31  | 7   | 6.4 | 3.0 | 3.4 | 1.3 | 13.2 |
| Middle/junior | ,21 | ,95 | 2.7 |     |     |     |     |      |
| > high        | 9.9 | 6.9 |     |     |     |     |     |      |
+---------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+------+
| > High        | 10  | 29  | 7   | 3.3 | 1.3 | 3.3 | 5.0 | 13.7 |
| > school/c    | ,39 | ,58 | 3.3 |     |     |     |     |      |
| ombined/other | 7.4 | 9.2 |     |     |     |     |     |      |
+---------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+------+
|               |     |     |     |     |     |     |     |      |
+---------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+------+
| Urbanicity    |     |     |     |     |     |     |     |      |
+---------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+------+
| > City        | 7   | 22  | 8   | 2.5 | 0.5 | 4.0 | 1.3 | 5.2  |
|               | ,43 | ,09 | 6.6 |     |     |     |     |      |
|               | 5.7 | 0.5 |     |     |     |     |     |      |
+---------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+------+
| > Urban       | 7   | 24  | 8   | 4.0 | 0.3 | 1.7 | 1.8 | 7.0  |
| > fringe      | ,35 | ,00 | 5.3 |     |     |     |     |      |
|               | 6.6 | 6.0 |     |     |     |     |     |      |
+---------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+------+
| > Town        | 8   | 27  | 8   | 4.8 | 0.5 | 2.0 | 2.5 | 8.2  |
|               | ,32 | ,49 | 2.0 |     |     |     |     |      |
|               | 7.0 | 2.2 |     |     |     |     |     |      |
+---------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+------+
| > Rural       | 8   | 30  | 7   | 3.4 | 2.8 | 3.1 | 3.7 | 16.0 |
|               | ,27 | ,58 | 0.9 |     |     |     |     |      |
|               | 6.7 | 8.0 |     |     |     |     |     |      |
+---------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+------+
|               |     |     |     |     |     |     |     |      |
+---------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+------+
| Free/         |     |     |     |     |     |     |     |      |
| reduced-price |     |     |     |     |     |     |     |      |
| lunch         |     |     |     |     |     |     |     |      |
| eligibility   |     |     |     |     |     |     |     |      |
+---------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+------+
| > Less than   | 12  | 24  | 7   | 3.0 | 1.3 | 2.8 | 2.9 | 10.9 |
| > 50 percent  | ,18 | ,66 | 9.1 |     |     |     |     |      |
|               | 7.2 | 1.8 |     |     |     |     |     |      |
+---------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+------+
| > 50 percent  | 6   | 26  | 8   | 3.6 | 1.3 | 3.1 | 2.2 | 9.2  |
| > or more     | ,38 | ,48 | 0.7 |     |     |     |     |      |
|               | 5.0 | 1.2 |     |     |     |     |     |      |
+---------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+------+
|               |     |     |     |     |     |     |     |      |
+---------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+------+
| Total         |     |     |     |     |     |     |     |      |
| expenditures  |     |     |     |     |     |     |     |      |
| per student   |     |     |     |     |     |     |     |      |
+---------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+------+
| > \$12.00 or  | 2   | 28  | 8   | 2.8 | 1.6 | 4.0 | 1.6 | 9.9  |
| > less        | ,66 | ,20 | 0.0 |     |     |     |     |      |
|               | 1.2 | 2.2 |     |     |     |     |     |      |
+---------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+------+
| > \$1         | 6   | 26  | 7   | 4.1 | 1.1 | 1.2 | 2.5 | 12.4 |
| 2.01--\$20.00 | ,12 | ,69 | 8.6 |     |     |     |     |      |
|               | 2.9 | 4.5 |     |     |     |     |     |      |
+---------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+------+
| > More than   | 14  | 23  | 8   | 3.9 | 1.0 | 2.9 | 3.4 | 8.3  |
| > \$20.00     | ,97 | ,52 | 0.6 |     |     |     |     |      |
|               | 5.0 | 7.1 |     |     |     |     |     |      |
+---------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+------+
|               |     |     |     |     |     |     |     |      |
+---------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+------+
| Total FTE     |     |     |     |     |     |     |     |      |
| staff         |     |     |     |     |     |     |     |      |
+---------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+------+
| > 1.25 or     | 6   | 25  | 7   | 3.4 | 1.7 | 3.1 | 2.4 | 11.6 |
| > less        | ,43 | ,85 | 7.7 |     |     |     |     |      |
|               | 9.3 | 5.3 |     |     |     |     |     |      |
+---------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+------+
| > 1.26--1.75  | 8   | 22  | 8   | 4.0 | 0.8 | 1.4 | 2.3 | 5.3  |
|               | ,99 | ,15 | 6.3 |     |     |     |     |      |
|               | 7.0 | 0.3 |     |     |     |     |     |      |
+---------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+------+
| > More than   | 10  | 31  | 8   | 2.8 | 0.3 | 4.6 | 2.7 | 9.0  |
| > 1.75        | ,86 | ,67 | 0.6 |     |     |     |     |      |
|               | 2.0 | 5.0 |     |     |     |     |     |      |
+---------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+------+

FTE = full-time equivalent.

*Note:* The asterisks (\*) indicate that there is a statistically
significant difference (i.e., *p*-value ≤ .05) between grantee and
nongrantee school libraries. Percentages may not add to 100 because of
rounding and incomplete data for some schools.

*Source:* Second evaluation, school library media center survey
questions 32 and 33.

**Exhibit A-9**

**Percentage of School Libraries That Conducted a Needs Assessment in
the Last Two Years, and Percentage of\
Those Libraries That Identified Particular Needs, by School
Characteristics, Fall 2006**

<table>
<colgroup>
<col style="width: 21%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
</colgroup>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td rowspan="2">School Characteristic</td>
<td rowspan="2">Conducted Assessment</td>
<td colspan="11">Percentage Identifying Need</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>More<br />
Staff</td>
<td>More Non-English Materials</td>
<td>More Up-to-Date Materials</td>
<td>More Time for Planning</td>
<td>More Space</td>
<td>More Computer Equipment</td>
<td>Rewiring the Library</td>
<td>Flexible Scheduling</td>
<td>More Professional Development</td>
<td>More Hours Open</td>
<td>Other</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Percentage of all schools</td>
<td>35</td>
<td>34</td>
<td>51</td>
<td>86</td>
<td>41</td>
<td>34</td>
<td>71</td>
<td>32</td>
<td>46</td>
<td>58</td>
<td>42</td>
<td>11</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Nongrantees</td>
<td>34</td>
<td>33</td>
<td>51</td>
<td>85</td>
<td>40</td>
<td>33</td>
<td>70</td>
<td>33</td>
<td>46</td>
<td>57</td>
<td>41</td>
<td>11</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Grantees</td>
<td>51*</td>
<td>55*</td>
<td>51</td>
<td>95*</td>
<td>64*</td>
<td>51*</td>
<td>80</td>
<td>29</td>
<td>54</td>
<td>75*</td>
<td>75*</td>
<td>11</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><blockquote>
<p>Received grant for two or more years</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td>45</td>
<td>45</td>
<td>29</td>
<td>86</td>
<td>58</td>
<td>38</td>
<td>71</td>
<td>37</td>
<td>38</td>
<td>36</td>
<td>43</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>School enrollment size</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><blockquote>
<p>400 or fewer</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td>49</td>
<td>53</td>
<td>44</td>
<td>96</td>
<td>63</td>
<td>52</td>
<td>77</td>
<td>20</td>
<td>58</td>
<td>79</td>
<td>79</td>
<td>17</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><blockquote>
<p>401–700</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td>49</td>
<td>55</td>
<td>54</td>
<td>98</td>
<td>71</td>
<td>48</td>
<td>83</td>
<td>33</td>
<td>53</td>
<td>72</td>
<td>70</td>
<td>7</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><blockquote>
<p>More than 700</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td>63</td>
<td>62</td>
<td>62</td>
<td>83</td>
<td>52</td>
<td>59</td>
<td>76</td>
<td>46</td>
<td>45</td>
<td>72</td>
<td>75</td>
<td>4</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>School level</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><blockquote>
<p>Elementary</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td>47</td>
<td>62</td>
<td>57</td>
<td>96</td>
<td>73</td>
<td>54</td>
<td>78</td>
<td>30</td>
<td>61</td>
<td>77</td>
<td>76</td>
<td>14</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><blockquote>
<p>Middle/junior high</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td>62</td>
<td>35</td>
<td>32</td>
<td>86</td>
<td>48</td>
<td>38</td>
<td>75</td>
<td>12</td>
<td>38</td>
<td>64</td>
<td>68</td>
<td>9</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><blockquote>
<p>High school/combined/other</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td>59</td>
<td>46</td>
<td>42</td>
<td>97</td>
<td>46</td>
<td>51</td>
<td>87</td>
<td>38</td>
<td>41</td>
<td>75</td>
<td>78</td>
<td>3</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Urbanicity</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><blockquote>
<p>City</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td>38</td>
<td>67</td>
<td>68</td>
<td>92</td>
<td>70</td>
<td>58</td>
<td>84</td>
<td>36</td>
<td>70</td>
<td>80</td>
<td>74</td>
<td>10</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><blockquote>
<p>Urban fringe</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td>64</td>
<td>45</td>
<td>59</td>
<td>92</td>
<td>63</td>
<td>49</td>
<td>82</td>
<td>23</td>
<td>55</td>
<td>69</td>
<td>79</td>
<td>10</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><blockquote>
<p>Town</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td>64</td>
<td>34</td>
<td>39</td>
<td>91</td>
<td>54</td>
<td>38</td>
<td>71</td>
<td>30</td>
<td>28</td>
<td>73</td>
<td>59</td>
<td>9</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><blockquote>
<p>Rural</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td>53</td>
<td>63</td>
<td>39</td>
<td>100</td>
<td>66</td>
<td>54</td>
<td>79</td>
<td>26</td>
<td>54</td>
<td>76</td>
<td>82</td>
<td>13</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Free/reduced-price lunch eligibility</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><blockquote>
<p>Less than 50 percent</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td>61</td>
<td>53</td>
<td>42</td>
<td>92</td>
<td>56</td>
<td>38</td>
<td>81</td>
<td>22</td>
<td>51</td>
<td>74</td>
<td>75</td>
<td>13</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><blockquote>
<p>50 percent or more</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td>47</td>
<td>56</td>
<td>55</td>
<td>96</td>
<td>68</td>
<td>57</td>
<td>79</td>
<td>32</td>
<td>56</td>
<td>76</td>
<td>75</td>
<td>10</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Total expenditures per student</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><blockquote>
<p>$12.00 or less</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td>50</td>
<td>55</td>
<td>40</td>
<td>97</td>
<td>62</td>
<td>50</td>
<td>70</td>
<td>37</td>
<td>56</td>
<td>65</td>
<td>67</td>
<td>12</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><blockquote>
<p>$12.01–$20.00</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td>60</td>
<td>52</td>
<td>54</td>
<td>89</td>
<td>65</td>
<td>51</td>
<td>89</td>
<td>25</td>
<td>53</td>
<td>81</td>
<td>76</td>
<td>17</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><blockquote>
<p>More than $20.00</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td>50</td>
<td>58</td>
<td>62</td>
<td>94</td>
<td>68</td>
<td>53</td>
<td>87</td>
<td>23</td>
<td>51</td>
<td>84</td>
<td>83</td>
<td>7</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Total FTE staff</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><blockquote>
<p>1.25 or less</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td>51</td>
<td>55</td>
<td>50</td>
<td>95</td>
<td>54</td>
<td>47</td>
<td>81</td>
<td>30</td>
<td>49</td>
<td>73</td>
<td>70</td>
<td>6</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><blockquote>
<p>1.26 –1.75</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td>58</td>
<td>66</td>
<td>56</td>
<td>98</td>
<td>86</td>
<td>66</td>
<td>82</td>
<td>16</td>
<td>72</td>
<td>89</td>
<td>84</td>
<td>22</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><blockquote>
<p>More than 1.75</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td>43</td>
<td>38</td>
<td>47</td>
<td>89</td>
<td>68</td>
<td>44</td>
<td>69</td>
<td>46</td>
<td>39</td>
<td>60</td>
<td>79</td>
<td>8</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>

FTE = full-time equivalent.

*Note:* The asterisks (\*) indicate that there is a statistically
significant difference (i.e., *p*-value ≤ .05) between grantee and
nongrantee school libraries.

*Source:* Second evaluation, school library media center survey
questions 39 and 40.

**Exhibit A-10**

**Percentage of School Libraries That Made Changes as the Result of a
Needs Assessment\
in the Last Two Years, by School Characteristics, Fall 2006**

<table>
<colgroup>
<col style="width: 21%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
</colgroup>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td>School Characteristic</td>
<td>More<br />
Staff</td>
<td>More Non-English Materials</td>
<td>More Up-to-Date Materials</td>
<td>More Time for Planning</td>
<td>More<br />
Space</td>
<td>More Computer Equipment</td>
<td>Rewiring the Library</td>
<td>Flexible Scheduling</td>
<td>More Professional Development</td>
<td>More Hours of Being Open</td>
<td>Other</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Percentage of all schools</td>
<td>10</td>
<td>42</td>
<td>79</td>
<td>22</td>
<td>13</td>
<td>50</td>
<td>28</td>
<td>31</td>
<td>42</td>
<td>25</td>
<td>6</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Nongrantees</td>
<td>10</td>
<td>42</td>
<td>78</td>
<td>21</td>
<td>13</td>
<td>49</td>
<td>28</td>
<td>31</td>
<td>41</td>
<td>24</td>
<td>6</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Grantees</td>
<td>21*</td>
<td>45</td>
<td>92*</td>
<td>39*</td>
<td>13</td>
<td>60</td>
<td>22</td>
<td>28</td>
<td>68*</td>
<td>62*</td>
<td>8</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><blockquote>
<p>Received grant for two or more years</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td>8</td>
<td>17</td>
<td>77</td>
<td>23</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>53</td>
<td>25</td>
<td>16</td>
<td>23</td>
<td>23</td>
<td>0</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>School enrollment size</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><blockquote>
<p>400 or fewer</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td>27</td>
<td>39</td>
<td>95</td>
<td>44</td>
<td>14</td>
<td>65</td>
<td>16</td>
<td>33</td>
<td>73</td>
<td>69</td>
<td>13</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><blockquote>
<p>401–700</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td>16</td>
<td>51</td>
<td>95</td>
<td>34</td>
<td>12</td>
<td>63</td>
<td>28</td>
<td>21</td>
<td>64</td>
<td>53</td>
<td>3</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><blockquote>
<p>More than 700</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td>19</td>
<td>48</td>
<td>78</td>
<td>37</td>
<td>10</td>
<td>41</td>
<td>25</td>
<td>29</td>
<td>66</td>
<td>65</td>
<td>4</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>School level</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><blockquote>
<p>Elementary</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td>23</td>
<td>52</td>
<td>94</td>
<td>42</td>
<td>13</td>
<td>57</td>
<td>22</td>
<td>28</td>
<td>71</td>
<td>62</td>
<td>10</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><blockquote>
<p>Middle/junior high</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td>8</td>
<td>15</td>
<td>80</td>
<td>34</td>
<td>8</td>
<td>60</td>
<td>9</td>
<td>22</td>
<td>49</td>
<td>49</td>
<td>5</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><blockquote>
<p>High school/combined/other</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td>25</td>
<td>39</td>
<td>94</td>
<td>34</td>
<td>14</td>
<td>70</td>
<td>28</td>
<td>31</td>
<td>71</td>
<td>70</td>
<td>3</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Urbanicity</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><blockquote>
<p>City</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td>19</td>
<td>60</td>
<td>87</td>
<td>46</td>
<td>8</td>
<td>49</td>
<td>34</td>
<td>37</td>
<td>75</td>
<td>60</td>
<td>8</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><blockquote>
<p>Urban fringe</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td>5</td>
<td>53</td>
<td>85</td>
<td>27</td>
<td>18</td>
<td>45</td>
<td>13</td>
<td>21</td>
<td>59</td>
<td>58</td>
<td>8</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><blockquote>
<p>Town</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td>13</td>
<td>34</td>
<td>94</td>
<td>34</td>
<td>9</td>
<td>63</td>
<td>19</td>
<td>10</td>
<td>71</td>
<td>54</td>
<td>3</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><blockquote>
<p>Rural</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td>38</td>
<td>34</td>
<td>99</td>
<td>44</td>
<td>15</td>
<td>75</td>
<td>19</td>
<td>34</td>
<td>67</td>
<td>70</td>
<td>11</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Free/reduced-price lunch eligibility</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><blockquote>
<p>Less than 50 percent</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td>22</td>
<td>29</td>
<td>88</td>
<td>28</td>
<td>12</td>
<td>65</td>
<td>25</td>
<td>24</td>
<td>64</td>
<td>61</td>
<td>9</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><blockquote>
<p>50 percent or more</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td>21</td>
<td>52</td>
<td>94</td>
<td>45</td>
<td>13</td>
<td>58</td>
<td>20</td>
<td>29</td>
<td>70</td>
<td>62</td>
<td>7</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Total expenditures per student</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><blockquote>
<p>$12.00 or less</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td>28</td>
<td>35</td>
<td>93</td>
<td>39</td>
<td>20</td>
<td>61</td>
<td>30</td>
<td>34</td>
<td>57</td>
<td>55</td>
<td>9</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><blockquote>
<p>$12.01–$20.00</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td>19</td>
<td>47</td>
<td>90</td>
<td>44</td>
<td>11</td>
<td>61</td>
<td>21</td>
<td>31</td>
<td>76</td>
<td>67</td>
<td>8</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><blockquote>
<p>More than $20.00</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td>14</td>
<td>59</td>
<td>94</td>
<td>40</td>
<td>7</td>
<td>63</td>
<td>15</td>
<td>18</td>
<td>80</td>
<td>68</td>
<td>7</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Total FTE staff</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><blockquote>
<p>1.25 or less</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td>28</td>
<td>42</td>
<td>93</td>
<td>35</td>
<td>14</td>
<td>65</td>
<td>24</td>
<td>34</td>
<td>64</td>
<td>56</td>
<td>5</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><blockquote>
<p>1.26–1.75</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td>11</td>
<td>53</td>
<td>95</td>
<td>56</td>
<td>14</td>
<td>56</td>
<td>15</td>
<td>18</td>
<td>87</td>
<td>73</td>
<td>16</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><blockquote>
<p>More than 1.75</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td>16</td>
<td>41</td>
<td>83</td>
<td>27</td>
<td>7</td>
<td>50</td>
<td>25</td>
<td>21</td>
<td>52</td>
<td>63</td>
<td>4</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>

FTE = full-time equivalent.

*Note:* The asterisks (\*) indicate that there is a statistically
significant difference (i.e., *p*-value ≤ .05) between grantee and
nongrantee school libraries.

*Source:* Second evaluation, school library media center survey question
40.

**Exhibit A-11**

**Percentage of School Libraries' Holdings That Support the
Instructional Program in English,\
by Degree of Adequacy, Grantee Status and Type of Material, Spring 2005
and 2006**

  --------------------- ----------- -------- ---------- -------- ------------ --------
  Grantee Status and    Excellent            Adequate            Inadequate   
  Type of Material                                                            

                        Spring 2005 Spring   Spring     Spring   Spring 2005  Spring
                                    2006     2005       2006                  2006

                                                                              

  **Grantee**                                                                 

  Overall               11          33\*     54         57       34\*         10
  reading/English                                                             
  collection                                                                  

  Print materials       10          29\*     55         60       35\*         11

  Video/audiovisual     3           16       46         49       52\*         35
  materials                                                                   

  Computer software     3           9        40         55\*     57\*         36

                                                                              

  **Nongrantee**                                                              

  Overall               20\*        24       58         60       22           16\*
  reading/English                                                             
  collection                                                                  

  Print materials       19\*        22       58         57       23           21\*

  Video/audiovisual     10\*        13       52         54       37           33
  materials                                                                   

  Computer software     8\*         10       47\*       47       44           43\*
  --------------------- ----------- -------- ---------- -------- ------------ --------

*Note:* The asterisks (\*) indicate that there is a statistically
significant difference (i.e., *p*-value ≤ .05) between grantee and
nongrantee school libraries. Percentages may not add to 100 because of
rounding.

*Source:* Second evaluation, school library media center survey question
20.

**Exhibit A-12**

**Percentage of School Libraries Reporting That Their Holdings in
Supporting the Instructional Program in English\
Were Adequate or Excellent, by School Characteristics, Spring 2005 and
2006**

+-----------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
| School          | O   |     | Pr  |     | Vi  |     | Co  |     |
| Characteristic  | ver |     | int |     | deo |     | mpu |     |
|                 | all |     | Mat |     | /Au |     | ter |     |
|                 | Rea |     | eri |     | dio |     | So  |     |
|                 | din |     | als |     | vis |     | ftw |     |
|                 | g/\ |     |     |     | ual |     | are |     |
|                 | E   |     |     |     | Mat |     |     |     |
|                 | ngl |     |     |     | eri |     |     |     |
|                 | ish |     |     |     | als |     |     |     |
|                 | C   |     |     |     |     |     |     |     |
|                 | oll |     |     |     |     |     |     |     |
|                 | ect |     |     |     |     |     |     |     |
|                 | ion |     |     |     |     |     |     |     |
+-----------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
|                 | Spr | Spr | Spr | Spr | Spr | Spr | Spr | Spr |
|                 | ing | ing | ing | ing | ing | ing | ing | ing |
|                 | 2   | 2   | 2   | 2   | 2   | 2   | 2   | 2   |
|                 | 005 | 006 | 005 | 006 | 005 | 006 | 005 | 006 |
+-----------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
|                 |     |     |     |     |     |     |     |     |
+-----------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
| Percentage of   | 78  | 84  | 76  | 80  | 62  | 67  | 55  | 57  |
| all schools     |     |     |     |     |     |     |     |     |
+-----------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
|                 |     |     |     |     |     |     |     |     |
+-----------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
| Nongrantees     | 7   | 84  | 7   | 79  | 6   | 67  | 5   | 57  |
|                 | 8\* |     | 7\* |     | 3\* |     | 6\* |     |
+-----------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
| Grantees        | 66  | 9   | 65  | 8   | 48  | 65  | 43  | 6   |
|                 |     | 0\* |     | 9\* |     |     |     | 4\* |
+-----------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
| > Received      | 74  | 78  | 73  | 78  | 46  | 49  | 35  | 45  |
| > grant for two |     |     |     |     |     |     |     |     |
| > or more years |     |     |     |     |     |     |     |     |
+-----------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
|                 |     |     |     |     |     |     |     |     |
+-----------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
| School          |     |     |     |     |     |     |     |     |
| enrollment size |     |     |     |     |     |     |     |     |
+-----------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
| > 400 or fewer  | 64  | 91  | 61  | 90  | 42  | 63  | 40  | 66  |
+-----------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
| > 401--700      | 69  | 92  | 70  | 92  | 54  | 67  | 44  | 60  |
+-----------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
| > More than 700 | 62  | 83  | 62  | 80  | 54  | 67  | 51  | 70  |
+-----------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
|                 |     |     |     |     |     |     |     |     |
+-----------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
| School level    |     |     |     |     |     |     |     |     |
+-----------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
| > Elementary    | 71  | 91  | 68  | 90  | 50  | 65  | 43  | 62  |
+-----------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
| > Middle/junior | 59  | 95  | 66  | 95  | 46  | 67  | 45  | 71  |
| > high          |     |     |     |     |     |     |     |     |
+-----------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
| > High          | 49  | 83  | 52  | 83  | 40  | 62  | 40  | 67  |
| > school        |     |     |     |     |     |     |     |     |
| /combined/other |     |     |     |     |     |     |     |     |
+-----------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
|                 |     |     |     |     |     |     |     |     |
+-----------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
| Urbanicity      |     |     |     |     |     |     |     |     |
+-----------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
| > City          | 72  | 92  | 72  | 91  | 56  | 63  | 50  | 63  |
+-----------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
| > Urban fringe  | 69  | 93  | 64  | 94  | 45  | 67  | 37  | 61  |
+-----------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
| > Town          | 74  | 89  | 74  | 91  | 63  | 76  | 49  | 64  |
+-----------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
| > Rural         | 54  | 88  | 54  | 85  | 36  | 61  | 36  | 67  |
+-----------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
|                 |     |     |     |     |     |     |     |     |
+-----------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
| Fre             |     |     |     |     |     |     |     |     |
| e/reduced-price |     |     |     |     |     |     |     |     |
| lunch           |     |     |     |     |     |     |     |     |
| eligibility     |     |     |     |     |     |     |     |     |
+-----------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
| > Less than     | 56  | 90  | 59  | 89  | 45  | 65  | 39  | 68  |
| > 50 percent    |     |     |     |     |     |     |     |     |
+-----------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
| > 50 percent or | 69  | 90  | 67  | 89  | 50  | 65  | 44  | 63  |
| > more          |     |     |     |     |     |     |     |     |
+-----------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
|                 |     |     |     |     |     |     |     |     |
+-----------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
| Total           |     |     |     |     |     |     |     |     |
| expenditures    |     |     |     |     |     |     |     |     |
| per student     |     |     |     |     |     |     |     |     |
+-----------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
| > \$12.00 or    | 63  | 90  | 59  | 86  | 39  | 56  | 40  | 62  |
| > less          |     |     |     |     |     |     |     |     |
+-----------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
| > \             | 68  | 93  | 71  | 92  | 64  | 80  | 46  | 70  |
| $12.01--\$20.00 |     |     |     |     |     |     |     |     |
+-----------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
| > More than     | 67  | 90  | 66  | 93  | 50  | 68  | 44  | 64  |
| > \$20.00       |     |     |     |     |     |     |     |     |
+-----------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
|                 |     |     |     |     |     |     |     |     |
+-----------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
| Total FTE staff |     |     |     |     |     |     |     |     |
+-----------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
| > 1.25 or less  | 57  | 89  | 61  | 87  | 38  | 56  | 34  | 58  |
+-----------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
| > 1.26--1.75    | 79  | 96  | 64  | 96  | 65  | 83  | 52  | 71  |
+-----------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
| > More than     | 76  | 86  | 78  | 89  | 59  | 72  | 58  | 75  |
| > 1.75          |     |     |     |     |     |     |     |     |
+-----------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+

FTE = full-time equivalent.

*Note:* The asterisks (\*) indicate that there is a statistically
significant difference (i.e., *p*-value ≤ .05) between grantee and
nongrantee school libraries.

*Source:* Second evaluation, school library media center survey question
20.

**Exhibit A-13**

**Percentage of School Libraries Reporting the Adequacy of Their
Resources in Specified Areas,\
by Grantee Status, Spring 2005 and 2006**

  ------------------------- ----------- ----------- ------------ ------------
  Grantee Status and        Excellent   Adequate    Inadequate   Not
  Resource                                                       Applicable

  **Spring 2005**                                                

  **Grantee**                                                    

  English as a second       2           30          47           21
  language                                                       

  Multicultural materials   10          51          37\*         2

  High interest--low        9           48          41\*         2
  vocabulary                                                     

  Picture books/easy        17          51          26\*         5
  readers                                                        

  Proprietary online        13          36          43\*         8
  resources/subscriptions                                        

                                                                 

  **Nongrantee**                                                 

  English as a second       2           34          43           21
  language                                                       

  Multicultural materials   13          57          26           4

  High interest--low        18\*        56\*        25           1
  vocabulary                                                     

  Picture books/easy        26\*        46          17           11\*
  readers                                                        

  Proprietary online        20\*        41          31           9
  resources/subscriptions                                        

                                                                 

  **Spring 2006**                                                

  **Grantee**                                                    

  English as a second       9\*         41          29           21
  language                                                       

  Multicultural materials   27\*        58          14           1

  High interest--low        29\*        57          13           1\*
  vocabulary                                                     

  Picture books/easy        46\*        42          7            4
  readers                                                        

  Proprietary online        26          46          20           7
  resources/subscriptions                                        

                                                                 

  **Nongrantee**                                                 

  English as a second       2           39          38\*         21
  language                                                       

  Multicultural materials   14          62          21\*         3

  High interest--low        22          57          21\*         0
  vocabulary                                                     

  Picture books/easy        32          47          12\*         9\*
  readers                                                        

  Proprietary online        22          42          28\*         8
  resources/subscriptions                                        
  ------------------------- ----------- ----------- ------------ ------------

*Note:* The asterisks (\*) indicate that there is a statistically
significant difference (i.e., *p*-value ≤ .05) between grantee and
nongrantee school libraries. Percentages may not add to 100 because of
rounding.

*Source:* Second evaluation, school library media center survey question
21.

**Exhibit A-14**

**Percentage of School Libraries Reporting That Their Resources Were
Excellent or Adequate in Specified Areas,\
by School Characteristics, Spring 2005 and 2006**

<table style="width:100%;">
<colgroup>
<col style="width: 19%" />
<col style="width: 8%" />
<col style="width: 8%" />
<col style="width: 8%" />
<col style="width: 8%" />
<col style="width: 8%" />
<col style="width: 8%" />
<col style="width: 8%" />
<col style="width: 8%" />
<col style="width: 8%" />
<col style="width: 8%" />
</colgroup>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td rowspan="2">School Characteristic</td>
<td colspan="2">English as a Second Language</td>
<td colspan="2">Multicultural Materials</td>
<td colspan="2">High Interest–Low Vocabulary</td>
<td colspan="2">Picture Books/Easy Readers</td>
<td colspan="2">Proprietary Online<br />
Resources</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>2005</td>
<td>2006</td>
<td>2005</td>
<td>2006</td>
<td>2005</td>
<td>2006</td>
<td>2005</td>
<td>2006</td>
<td>2005</td>
<td>2006</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Percentage of all schools</td>
<td>36</td>
<td>42</td>
<td>70</td>
<td>76</td>
<td>73</td>
<td>79</td>
<td>72</td>
<td>79</td>
<td>60</td>
<td>64</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Nongrantees</td>
<td>36</td>
<td>41</td>
<td>70*</td>
<td>76</td>
<td>74*</td>
<td>79</td>
<td>72</td>
<td>79</td>
<td>61*</td>
<td>64</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Grantees</td>
<td>32</td>
<td>49*</td>
<td>61</td>
<td>85*</td>
<td>57</td>
<td>86*</td>
<td>68</td>
<td>88*</td>
<td>49</td>
<td>72*</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><blockquote>
<p>Received grant for two or more years</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td>24</td>
<td>27</td>
<td>60</td>
<td>79</td>
<td>68</td>
<td>83</td>
<td>73</td>
<td>89</td>
<td>49</td>
<td>57</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>School enrollment size</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><blockquote>
<p>400 or fewer</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td>27</td>
<td>41</td>
<td>62</td>
<td>84</td>
<td>53</td>
<td>84</td>
<td>67</td>
<td>89</td>
<td>50</td>
<td>71</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><blockquote>
<p>401–700</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td>34</td>
<td>53</td>
<td>62</td>
<td>88</td>
<td>60</td>
<td>87</td>
<td>73</td>
<td>91</td>
<td>42</td>
<td>70</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><blockquote>
<p>More than 700</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td>44</td>
<td>69</td>
<td>54</td>
<td>77</td>
<td>60</td>
<td>91</td>
<td>59</td>
<td>79</td>
<td>64</td>
<td>86</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>School level</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><blockquote>
<p>Elementary</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td>35</td>
<td>52</td>
<td>64</td>
<td>87</td>
<td>57</td>
<td>86</td>
<td>77</td>
<td>95</td>
<td>45</td>
<td>71</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><blockquote>
<p>Middle/junior high</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td>30</td>
<td>48</td>
<td>63</td>
<td>89</td>
<td>59</td>
<td>87</td>
<td>44</td>
<td>72</td>
<td>56</td>
<td>72</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><blockquote>
<p>High school/combined/other</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td>23</td>
<td>39</td>
<td>46</td>
<td>71</td>
<td>54</td>
<td>87</td>
<td>48</td>
<td>70</td>
<td>62</td>
<td>80</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Urbanicity</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><blockquote>
<p>City</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td>45</td>
<td>65</td>
<td>67</td>
<td>86</td>
<td>62</td>
<td>81</td>
<td>79</td>
<td>91</td>
<td>53</td>
<td>74</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><blockquote>
<p>Urban fringe</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td>39</td>
<td>61</td>
<td>62</td>
<td>86</td>
<td>64</td>
<td>91</td>
<td>59</td>
<td>89</td>
<td>32</td>
<td>68</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><blockquote>
<p>Town</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td>35</td>
<td>54</td>
<td>55</td>
<td>86</td>
<td>53</td>
<td>82</td>
<td>66</td>
<td>82</td>
<td>55</td>
<td>73</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><blockquote>
<p>Rural</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td>14</td>
<td>25</td>
<td>56</td>
<td>82</td>
<td>50</td>
<td>91</td>
<td>63</td>
<td>88</td>
<td>49</td>
<td>73</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><blockquote>
<p>Free/reduced-price lunch eligibility</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><blockquote>
<p>Less than 50 percent</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td>20</td>
<td>33</td>
<td>46</td>
<td>81</td>
<td>49</td>
<td>85</td>
<td>61</td>
<td>84</td>
<td>53</td>
<td>74</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><blockquote>
<p>50 percent or more</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td>36</td>
<td>55</td>
<td>66</td>
<td>86</td>
<td>60</td>
<td>87</td>
<td>71</td>
<td>90</td>
<td>47</td>
<td>72</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Total expenditures per student</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><blockquote>
<p>$12.00 or less</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td>27</td>
<td>39</td>
<td>61</td>
<td>86</td>
<td>52</td>
<td>84</td>
<td>65</td>
<td>89</td>
<td>43</td>
<td>68</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><blockquote>
<p>$12.01–$20.00</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td>31</td>
<td>56</td>
<td>59</td>
<td>86</td>
<td>57</td>
<td>84</td>
<td>72</td>
<td>85</td>
<td>56</td>
<td>72</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><blockquote>
<p>More than $20.00</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td>35</td>
<td>59</td>
<td>60</td>
<td>84</td>
<td>60</td>
<td>89</td>
<td>70</td>
<td>88</td>
<td>50</td>
<td>77</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Total FTE staff</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><blockquote>
<p>1.25 or less</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td>28</td>
<td>43</td>
<td>59</td>
<td>83</td>
<td>52</td>
<td>82</td>
<td>67</td>
<td>86</td>
<td>46</td>
<td>66</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><blockquote>
<p>1.26–1.75</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td>41</td>
<td>65</td>
<td>64</td>
<td>90</td>
<td>64</td>
<td>91</td>
<td>70</td>
<td>94</td>
<td>44</td>
<td>79</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><blockquote>
<p>More than 1.75</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td>35</td>
<td>50</td>
<td>62</td>
<td>83</td>
<td>61</td>
<td>94</td>
<td>72</td>
<td>91</td>
<td>62</td>
<td>84</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>

FTE = full-time equivalent.

*Note:* The asterisks (\*) indicate that there is a statistically
significant difference (i.e., *p*-value ≤ .05) between grantee and
nongrantee school libraries. Percentages are based on schools reporting
that the specified area was applicable to their school.

*Source:* Second evaluation, school library media center survey question
21.

**Exhibit A-15**

**Recency of Copyrights of Holdings at School Libraries, by School
Characteristics, Fall 2006**

+--------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| School       | Most |      |      | Most |      |      | Mean | Mean |
| Ch           | Re   |      |      | Re   |      |      | Year | Year |
| aracteristic | cent |      |      | cent |      |      | for  | for  |
|              | W    |      |      | Gen  |      |      | Fic  | No   |
|              | orld |      |      | eral |      |      | tion | nfic |
|              | At   |      |      | E    |      |      | Co   | tion |
|              | las\ |      |      | ncyc |      |      | llec | Co   |
|              | (Pe  |      |      | lope |      |      | tion | llec |
|              | rcen |      |      | dia\ |      |      |      | tion |
|              | tage |      |      | (Pe  |      |      |      |      |
|              | of   |      |      | rcen |      |      |      |      |
|              | Scho |      |      | tage |      |      |      |      |
|              | ols) |      |      | of   |      |      |      |      |
|              |      |      |      | Scho |      |      |      |      |
|              |      |      |      | ols) |      |      |      |      |
+--------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
|              | 2005 | 2003 | 2002 | 2005 | 2003 | 2002 |      |      |
|              | or   | or   | or   | or   | or   | or   |      |      |
|              | 2006 | 2004 | ear  | 2006 | 2004 | ear  |      |      |
|              |      |      | lier |      |      | lier |      |      |
+--------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
|              |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+--------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Percentage   | 42   | 20   | 39   | 46   | 20   | 34   | 1992 | 1992 |
| of all       |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
| schools      |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+--------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
|              |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+--------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Nongrantees  | 41   | 20   | 39   | 45   | 20   | 35\* | 1992 | 1992 |
+--------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Grantees     | 46   | 18   | 35   | 63\* | 16   | 21   | 1992 | 19   |
|              |      |      |      |      |      |      |      | 93\* |
+--------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| > Received   | 36   | 19   | 46   | 59   | 19   | 22   | 1995 | 1996 |
| > grant for  |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
| > two or     |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
| > more years |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+--------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
|              |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+--------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| School       |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
| enrollment   |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
| size         |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+--------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| > 400 or     | 49   | 13   | 38   | 63   | 15   | 22   | 1992 | 1993 |
| > fewer      |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+--------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| > 401--700   | 43   | 24   | 34   | 61   | 18   | 21   | 1992 | 1993 |
+--------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| > More than  | 50   | 19   | 30   | 70   | 14   | 16   | 1994 | 1995 |
| > 700        |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+--------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
|              |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+--------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| School level |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+--------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| > Elementary | 45   | 18   | 37   | 60   | 19   | 21   | 1992 | 1993 |
+--------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| > M          | 47   | 15   | 38   | 55   | 12   | 33   | 1992 | 1992 |
| iddle/junior |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
| > high       |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+--------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| > High       | 56   | 12   | 32   | 69   | 9    | 22   | 1994 | 1993 |
| > school/co  |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
| mbined/other |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+--------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
|              |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+--------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Urbanicity   |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+--------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| > City       | 49   | 16   | 35   | 65   | 17   | 18   | 1994 | 1994 |
+--------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| > Urban      | 48   | 22   | 30   | 65   | 16   | 19   | 1990 | 1994 |
| > fringe     |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+--------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| > Town       | 30   | 29   | 42   | 49   | 23   | 28   | 1991 | 1991 |
+--------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| > Rural      | 50   | 15   | 35   | 68   | 12   | 20   | 1992 | 1993 |
+--------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
|              |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+--------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Free/r       |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
| educed-price |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
| lunch        |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
| eligibility  |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+--------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| > Less than  | 48   | 18   | 34   | 60   | 17   | 24   | 1992 | 1992 |
| > 50 percent |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+--------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| > 50 percent | 46   | 18   | 36   | 65   | 16   | 19   | 1992 | 1993 |
| > or more    |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+--------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
|              |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+--------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Total        |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
| expenditures |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
| per student  |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+--------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| > \$12.00 or | 47   | 20   | 33   | 64   | 13   | 23   | 1992 | 1993 |
| > less       |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+--------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| > \$12       | 53   | 18   | 29   | 65   | 17   | 18   | 1993 | 1995 |
| .01--\$20.00 |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+--------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| > More than  | 46   | 17   | 37   | 63   | 18   | 19   | 1992 | 1993 |
| > \$20.00    |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+--------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
|              |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+--------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Total FTE    |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
| staff        |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+--------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| > 1.25 or    | 47   | 15   | 38   | 62   | 18   | 20   | 1993 | 1993 |
| > less       |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+--------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| > 1.26--1.75 | 43   | 28   | 29   | 63   | 14   | 23   | 1991 | 1993 |
+--------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| > More than  | 49   | 16   | 34   | 67   | 14   | 19   | 1992 | 1993 |
| > 1.75       |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+--------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+

FTE = full-time equivalent.

*Note:* The asterisks (\*) indicate that there is a statistically
significant difference (i.e., *p*-value ≤ .05) between grantee and
nongrantee school libraries. Percentages may not add to 100 because of
rounding.

*Source:* Second evaluation, school library media center survey
questions 22, 23, and 24.

**Exhibit A-16**

**Percentage of Schools Indicating the Importance of Various Factors in
Their Library's\
Choice of Books to Add During the 2005--06 School Year, by Grantee
Status**

  ------------------------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ------------
  Grantee Status and Factor Very\       Somewhat    Not\        Not Used/\
  for Choosing Books        Important   Important   Important   Not
                                                                Applicable

                                                                

  **Grantees**                                                  

  Books had won awards      58          35          3           3

  Lost books replaced       30          56          9\*         6

  Consultation with         77          19          1           3
  classroom teachers                                            

  Consultation with reading 42\*        21          3           34
  specialist                                                    

  Categories that become    49\*        29          10          12
  quickly outdated                                              

  Strengthen particular     87\*        10          1           3
  subject areas                                                 

  Other                     33          4           1\*         62

                                                                

  **Nongrantees**                                               

  Books had won awards      64          31          2           4

  Lost books replaced       37\*        53          4           6

  Consultation with         75          19          3           4
  classroom teachers                                            

  Consultation with reading 34          19          5           43\*
  specialist                                                    

  Categories that become    37          35          12          16
  quickly outdated                                              

  Strengthen particular     81          13          3           2
  subject areas                                                 

  Other                     34          4           0           62
  ------------------------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ------------

*Note:* The asterisks (\*) indicate that there is a statistically
significant difference (i.e., *p*-value ≤ .05) between grantee and
nongrantee school libraries. Percentages may not add to 100 because of
rounding.

*Source:* Second evaluation, school library media center survey question
25.

**Exhibit A-17**

**Percentage of School Libraries Reporting That Various Factors Were
Very or Somewhat Important When Selecting Books to Add to the Collection
During the 2005--06 School Year, by School Characteristics**

+-------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| School            | B    | Lost | Cons | Cons | Ca   | St   | O    |
| Characteristic    | ooks | B    | ulta | ulta | tego | reng | ther |
|                   | Had  | ooks | tion | tion | ries | then |      |
|                   | Won  | Repl | With | With | That | Pa   |      |
|                   | Aw   | aced | C    | Rea  | Be   | rtic |      |
|                   | ards |      | lass | ding | come | ular |      |
|                   |      |      | room | Sp   | Qui  | Sub  |      |
|                   |      |      | Teac | ecia | ckly | ject |      |
|                   |      |      | hers | list | Outd | A    |      |
|                   |      |      |      |      | ated | reas |      |
+-------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
|                   |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+-------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Percentage of all | 94   | 91   | 93   | 53   | 72   | 95   | 38   |
| schools           |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+-------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
|                   |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+-------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Nongrantees       | 94   | 91\* | 93   | 52   | 72   | 94   | 38   |
+-------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Grantees          | 93   | 85   | 96   | 63\* | 78\* | 97   | 37   |
+-------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| > Received grant  | 91   | 79   | 88   | 64   | 74   | 97   | 26   |
| > for two or more |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
| > years           |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+-------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
|                   |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+-------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| School enrollment |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
| size              |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+-------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| > 400 or fewer    | 93   | 86   | 95   | 60   | 77   | 96   | 37   |
+-------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| > 401--700        | 93   | 84   | 97   | 65   | 80   | 97   | 35   |
+-------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| > More than 700   | 96   | 90   | 97   | 69   | 77   | 98   | 42   |
+-------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
|                   |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+-------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| School level      |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+-------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| > Elementary      | 93   | 86   | 95   | 66   | 78   | 97   | 37   |
+-------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| > Middle/junior   | 98   | 90   | 100  | 65   | 77   | 98   | 30   |
| > high            |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+-------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| > High            | 94   | 78   | 98   | 51   | 83   | 97   | 39   |
| > scho            |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
| ol/combined/other |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+-------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
|                   |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+-------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Urbanicity        |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+-------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| > City            | 92   | 81   | 93   | 60   | 68   | 96   | 40   |
+-------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| > Urban fringe    | 93   | 85   | 100  | 66   | 94   | 97   | 35   |
+-------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| > Town            | 94   | 87   | 98   | 56   | 75   | 98   | 33   |
+-------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| > Rural           | 95   | 90   | 96   | 68   | 83   | 97   | 36   |
+-------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
|                   |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+-------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| F                 |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
| ree/reduced-price |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
| lunch eligibility |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+-------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| > Less than       | 94   | 92   | 100  | 62   | 80   | 99   | 44   |
| > 50 percent      |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+-------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| > 50 percent or   | 93   | 83   | 94   | 64   | 78   | 96   | 34   |
| > more            |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+-------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
|                   |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+-------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Total             |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
| expenditures per  |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
| student           |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+-------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| > \$12.00 or less | 92   | 79   | 95   | 60   | 70   | 97   | 39   |
+-------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| >                 | 98   | 94   | 100  | 62   | 85   | 100  | 36   |
|  \$12.01--\$20.00 |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+-------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| > More than       | 97   | 93   | 98   | 67   | 87   | 99   | 37   |
| > \$20.00         |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+-------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
|                   |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+-------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Total FTE staff   |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+-------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| > 1.25 or less    | 92   | 83   | 94   | 61   | 76   | 96   | 39   |
+-------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| > 1.26--1.75      | 99   | 94   | 100  | 63   | 85   | 99   | 36   |
+-------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| > More than 1.75  | 93   | 82   | 98   | 70   | 78   | 97   | 32   |
+-------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+

FTE = full-time equivalent.

*Note:* The asterisks (\*) indicate that there is a statistically
significant difference (i.e., *p*-value ≤ .05) between grantee and
nongrantee school libraries.

*Source:* Second evaluation, school library media center survey question
25.

**Exhibit A-18**

**Percentage of School Libraries Reporting That Various Electronic
Services Were Available\
on Different Kinds of Networks, by Grantee Status, Fall 2006**

  ----------------- ------------- ---------- -------------- ---------- -----------
  Grantee Status    Stand-Alone   Library    Buildingwide   District   Not
  and\              Computer      LAN        LAN            WAN        Available
  Electronic                                                           
  Service                                                              

                                                                       

  **Grantee**                                                          

  Automated         10            21         28             46         7
  catalogs                                                             

  CD-ROMs           43\*          13         22             15         20

  Internet access   6             9          21             81\*       0

  E-mail            4             8          16             83\*       3

  Electronic        2             7          11             49         34
  full-text                                                            
  periodicals                                                          

                                                                       

  **Nongrantee**                                                       

  Automated         10            25         26             40         10
  catalogs                                                             

  CD-ROMs           35            15         19             17         23

  Internet access   6             14\*       22             73         3\*

  E-mail            5             12\*       18             76         8\*

  Electronic        5\*           11         14             50         33
  full-text                                                            
  periodicals                                                          
  ----------------- ------------- ---------- -------------- ---------- -----------

LAN = local area network.

WAN = wide area network.

*Note:* The asterisks (\*) indicate that there is a statistically
significant difference (i.e., *p*-value ≤ .05) between grantee and
nongrantee school libraries.

*Source:* Second evaluation, school library media center survey question
27.

**Exhibit A-19**

**Percentage of School Libraries Reporting That Various Electronic
Services Were Networked\
to Locations Outside of the Library, by School Characteristics, Fall
2006**

+---------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| School              | Aut    | C      | In     | E-mail | Elec   |
| Characteristic      | omated | D-ROMs | ternet |        | tronic |
|                     | C      |        | Access |        | Ful    |
|                     | atalog |        |        |        | l-Text |
|                     |        |        |        |        | Perio  |
|                     |        |        |        |        | dicals |
+---------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
|                     |        |        |        |        |        |
+---------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| Percentage of all   | 63     | 34     | 87     | 84     | 57     |
| schools             |        |        |        |        |        |
+---------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
|                     |        |        |        |        |        |
+---------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| Nongrantees         | 62     | 34     | 87     | 84     | 57     |
+---------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| Grantees            | 69\*   | 35     | 93\*   | 91\*   | 57     |
+---------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| > Received grant    | 57     | 34     | 92     | 86     | 38     |
| > for two or more   |        |        |        |        |        |
| > years             |        |        |        |        |        |
+---------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
|                     |        |        |        |        |        |
+---------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| School enrollment   |        |        |        |        |        |
| size                |        |        |        |        |        |
+---------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| > 400 or fewer      | 71     | 36     | 95     | 93     | 57     |
+---------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| > 401--700          | 67     | 36     | 92     | 89     | 60     |
+---------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| > More than 700     | 69     | 29     | 91     | 91     | 48     |
+---------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
|                     |        |        |        |        |        |
+---------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| School level        |        |        |        |        |        |
+---------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| > Elementary        | 70     | 37     | 92     | 90     | 53     |
+---------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| > Middle/junior     | 72     | 39     | 95     | 95     | 66     |
| > high              |        |        |        |        |        |
+---------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| > High              | 64     | 27     | 96     | 93     | 67     |
| > sc                |        |        |        |        |        |
| hool/combined/other |        |        |        |        |        |
+---------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
|                     |        |        |        |        |        |
+---------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| Urbanicity          |        |        |        |        |        |
+---------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| > City              | 66     | 40     | 91     | 90     | 58     |
+---------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| > Urban fringe      | 72     | 29     | 97     | 95     | 56     |
+---------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| > Town              | 72     | 31     | 93     | 93     | 59     |
+---------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| > Rural             | 69     | 35     | 94     | 90     | 55     |
+---------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
|                     |        |        |        |        |        |
+---------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| Free/reduced-price  |        |        |        |        |        |
| lunch eligibility   |        |        |        |        |        |
+---------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| > Less than         | 69     | 34     | 90     | 89     | 67     |
| > 50 percent        |        |        |        |        |        |
+---------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| > 50 percent or     | 69     | 36     | 94     | 92     | 53     |
| > more              |        |        |        |        |        |
+---------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
|                     |        |        |        |        |        |
+---------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| Total expenditures  |        |        |        |        |        |
| per student         |        |        |        |        |        |
+---------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| > \$12.00 or less   | 68     | 37     | 93     | 92     | 56     |
+---------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| > \$12.01--\$20.00  | 69     | 32     | 92     | 92     | 54     |
+---------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| > More than \$20.00 | 74     | 34     | 96     | 92     | 63     |
+---------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
|                     |        |        |        |        |        |
+---------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| Total FTE staff     |        |        |        |        |        |
+---------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| > 1.25 or less      | 61     | 33     | 92     | 89     | 52     |
+---------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| > 1.26--1.75        | 80     | 34     | 94     | 95     | 63     |
+---------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| > More than 1.75    | 81     | 43     | 96     | 94     | 65     |
+---------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+

FTE = full-time equivalent.

*Note:* The asterisks (\*) indicate that there is a statistically
significant difference (i.e., *p*-value ≤ .05) between grantee and
nongrantee school libraries.

*Source:* Second evaluation, school library media center survey question
27.

**Exhibit A-20**

**Percentage of School Libraries With Computer Access to Catalogs of
Other Libraries,\
by Type of Library and School Characteristics, Fall 2006**

+--------------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
| School             | Public  | Co      | College | Other   | School  |
| Characteristic     | Library | mmunity | or      | School  | Li      |
|                    |         | College | Uni     | Li      | braries |
|                    |         | Library | versity | braries | Outside |
|                    |         |         | Library | in      | D       |
|                    |         |         |         | D       | istrict |
|                    |         |         |         | istrict |         |
+--------------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
|                    |         |         |         |         |         |
+--------------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
| Percentage of all  | 58      | 38      | 43      | 47      | 24      |
| schools            |         |         |         |         |         |
+--------------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
|                    |         |         |         |         |         |
+--------------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
| Nongrantees        | 58      | 38      | 42      | 47      | 24      |
+--------------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
| Grantees           | 64\*    | 47\*    | 53\*    | 61\*    | 33\*    |
+--------------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
| > Received grant   | 43      | 32      | 34      | 43      | 11      |
| > for two or more  |         |         |         |         |         |
| > years            |         |         |         |         |         |
+--------------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
|                    |         |         |         |         |         |
+--------------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
| School enrollment  |         |         |         |         |         |
| size               |         |         |         |         |         |
+--------------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
| > 400 or fewer     | 65      | 52      | 59      | 56      | 39      |
+--------------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
| > 401--700         | 60      | 38      | 43      | 61      | 23      |
+--------------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
| > More than 700    | 73      | 55      | 62      | 80      | 42      |
+--------------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
|                    |         |         |         |         |         |
+--------------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
| School level       |         |         |         |         |         |
+--------------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
| > Elementary       | 69      | 46      | 51      | 63      | 29      |
+--------------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
| > Middle/junior    | 45      | 39      | 41      | 65      | 38      |
| > high             |         |         |         |         |         |
+--------------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
| > High             | 56      | 56      | 70      | 47      | 46      |
| > sch              |         |         |         |         |         |
| ool/combined/other |         |         |         |         |         |
+--------------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
|                    |         |         |         |         |         |
+--------------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
| Urbanicity         |         |         |         |         |         |
+--------------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
| > City             | 81      | 38      | 42      | 65      | 30      |
+--------------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
| > Urban fringe     | 66      | 63      | 55      | 62      | 31      |
+--------------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
| > Town             | 58      | 38      | 52      | 77      | 35      |
+--------------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
| > Rural            | 48      | 52      | 64      | 49      | 36      |
+--------------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
|                    |         |         |         |         |         |
+--------------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
| Free/reduced-price |         |         |         |         |         |
| lunch eligibility  |         |         |         |         |         |
+--------------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
| > Less than        | 69      | 49      | 57      | 57      | 42      |
| > 50 percent       |         |         |         |         |         |
+--------------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
| > 50 percent or    | 63      | 46      | 52      | 62      | 29      |
| > more             |         |         |         |         |         |
+--------------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
|                    |         |         |         |         |         |
+--------------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
| Total expenditures |         |         |         |         |         |
| per student        |         |         |         |         |         |
+--------------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
| > \$12.00 or less  | 67      | 40      | 43      | 56      | 37      |
+--------------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
| > \$12.01--\$20.00 | 58      | 42      | 57      | 61      | 30      |
+--------------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
| > More than        | 65      | 57      | 65      | 69      | 31      |
| > \$20.00          |         |         |         |         |         |
+--------------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
|                    |         |         |         |         |         |
+--------------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
| Total FTE staff    |         |         |         |         |         |
+--------------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
| > 1.25 or less     | 61      | 44      | 47      | 51      | 29      |
+--------------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
| > 1.26--1.75       | 84      | 59      | 70      | 82      | 37      |
+--------------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
| > More than 1.75   | 51      | 39      | 50      | 66      | 37      |
+--------------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+

FTE = full-time equivalent.

*Note:* The asterisks (\*) indicate that there is a statistically
significant difference (i.e., *p*-value ≤ .05) between grantee and
nongrantee school libraries.

*Source:* Second evaluation, school library media center survey question
28.

**Exhibit A-21**

**Percentage of School Libraries That Participated in Cooperative
Activities With Local Public Libraries and the Ways They Participated in
the Last 12 Months, by School Characteristics,\
Fall 2006**

+----------------+-------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| School         | Pa    | Me   |      |      |      |      |      |
| Characteristic | rtici | thod |      |      |      |      |      |
|                | pated | of   |      |      |      |      |      |
|                | in    | P    |      |      |      |      |      |
|                | Any   | arti |      |      |      |      |      |
|                | C     | cipa |      |      |      |      |      |
|                | ooper | tion |      |      |      |      |      |
|                | ative |      |      |      |      |      |      |
|                | Act   |      |      |      |      |      |      |
|                | ivity |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+----------------+-------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
|                |       | B    | B    | I    | Coor | Au   | Su   |
|                |       | orro | orro | nfor | dina | toma | mmer |
|                |       | wing | wing | ming | ting | tion | Rea  |
|                |       | M    | M    | Pu   | on   | P    | ding |
|                |       | ater | ater | blic | Stu  | roje | Pro  |
|                |       | ials | ials | Lib  | dent | cts, | gram |
|                |       | for  | for  | rary | Rese | Such |      |
|                |       | Sc   | C    | of   | arch | as   |      |
|                |       | hool | lass | Cur  | Proj | On   |      |
|                |       | Lib  | room | ricu | ects | line |      |
|                |       | rary | Teac | lum/ |      | R    |      |
|                |       |      | hers | Home |      | esou |      |
|                |       |      |      | work |      | rces |      |
|                |       |      |      | N    |      |      |      |
|                |       |      |      | eeds |      |      |      |
+----------------+-------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
|                |       |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+----------------+-------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Percentage of  | 52    | 70   | 68   | 46   | 43   | 36   | 41   |
| all schools    |       |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+----------------+-------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
|                |       |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+----------------+-------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Nongrantees    | 51    | 70   | 68   | 46   | 43   | 36   | 41   |
+----------------+-------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Grantees       | 59\*  | 71   | 72   | 47   | 48   | 43   | 39   |
+----------------+-------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| > Received     | 46    | 83   | 78   | 63   | 67   | 27   | 53   |
| > grant for    |       |      |      |      |      |      |      |
| > two or more  |       |      |      |      |      |      |      |
| > years        |       |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+----------------+-------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
|                |       |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+----------------+-------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| School         |       |      |      |      |      |      |      |
| enrollment     |       |      |      |      |      |      |      |
| size           |       |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+----------------+-------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| > 400 or fewer | 58    | 76   | 74   | 49   | 47   | 36   | 38   |
+----------------+-------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| > 401--700     | 59    | 62   | 62   | 45   | 50   | 49   | 46   |
+----------------+-------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| > More than    | 62    | 77   | 90   | 46   | 43   | 47   | 26   |
| > 700          |       |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+----------------+-------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
|                |       |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+----------------+-------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| School level   |       |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+----------------+-------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| > Elementary   | 61    | 71   | 69   | 42   | 46   | 43   | 41   |
+----------------+-------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| >              | 60    | 61   | 60   | 67   | 49   | 41   | 47   |
|  Middle/junior |       |      |      |      |      |      |      |
| > high         |       |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+----------------+-------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| > High         | 48    | 75   | 94   | 56   | 58   | 42   | 23   |
| > sc           |       |      |      |      |      |      |      |
| hool/combined/ |       |      |      |      |      |      |      |
| > other        |       |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+----------------+-------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
|                |       |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+----------------+-------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Urbanicity     |       |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+----------------+-------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| > City         | 63    | 66   | 71   | 34   | 57   | 55   | 38   |
+----------------+-------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| > Urban fringe | 60    | 62   | 60   | 46   | 22   | 40   | 29   |
+----------------+-------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| > Town         | 64    | 75   | 83   | 67   | 47   | 25   | 45   |
+----------------+-------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| > Rural        | 52    | 79   | 72   | 53   | 50   | 38   | 42   |
+----------------+-------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
|                |       |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+----------------+-------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Free           |       |      |      |      |      |      |      |
| /reduced-price |       |      |      |      |      |      |      |
| lunch\         |       |      |      |      |      |      |      |
| eligibility    |       |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+----------------+-------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| > Less than    | 62    | 74   | 76   | 47   | 57   | 54   | 42   |
| > 50 percent   |       |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+----------------+-------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| > 50 percent   | 58    | 69   | 70   | 47   | 44   | 39   | 38   |
| > or more      |       |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+----------------+-------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
|                |       |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+----------------+-------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Total          |       |      |      |      |      |      |      |
| expenditures   |       |      |      |      |      |      |      |
| per student    |       |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+----------------+-------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| > \$12.00 or   | 62    | 67   | 70   | 58   | 51   | 30   | 42   |
| > less         |       |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+----------------+-------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| > \$           | 67    | 75   | 81   | 48   | 55   | 39   | 44   |
| 12.01--\$20.00 |       |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+----------------+-------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| > More than    | 57    | 74   | 73   | 35   | 41   | 59   | 32   |
| > \$20.00      |       |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+----------------+-------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
|                |       |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+----------------+-------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Total FTE      |       |      |      |      |      |      |      |
| staff          |       |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+----------------+-------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| > 1.25 or less | 57    | 70   | 68   | 51   | 59   | 46   | 43   |
+----------------+-------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| > 1.26--1.75   | 69    | 80   | 77   | 32   | 28   | 50   | 29   |
+----------------+-------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| > More than    | 53    | 60   | 74   | 58   | 43   | 20   | 42   |
| > 1.75         |       |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+----------------+-------+------+------+------+------+------+------+

FTE = full-time equivalent.

*Note:* The asterisk (\*) indicates that there is a statistically
significant difference (i.e., *p*-value ≤ .05) between grantee and
nongrantee school libraries.

*Source:* Second evaluation, school library media center survey
questions 29, 30, and 31.

**Exhibit A-22**

**Mean Length of Time the School Library Was Open,\
by School Characteristics, Spring 2005 and 2006**

+--------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| School             | Ty    |       |       | S     |       |       |
| Characteristic     | pical |       |       | ummer |       |       |
|                    | Full  |       |       | Vaca  |       |       |
|                    | Week  |       |       | tion\ |       |       |
|                    | of    |       |       | (Mean |       |       |
|                    | Sc    |       |       | N     |       |       |
|                    | hool\ |       |       | umber |       |       |
|                    | (Mean |       |       | of    |       |       |
|                    | N     |       |       | Days) |       |       |
|                    | umber |       |       |       |       |       |
|                    | of    |       |       |       |       |       |
|                    | H     |       |       |       |       |       |
|                    | ours) |       |       |       |       |       |
+--------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
|                    | S     | S     | Perce | S     | S     | Perce |
|                    | pring | pring | ntage | ummer | ummer | ntage |
|                    | 2005  | 2006  | Chan  | 2005  | 2006  | Chan  |
|                    |       |       | ge^a^ |       |       | ge^a^ |
+--------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
|                    |       |       |       |       |       |       |
+--------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| Mean of all        | 33.9  | 34.8  | 3     | 6.7   | 6.4   | -4    |
| schools            |       |       |       |       |       |       |
+--------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
|                    |       |       |       |       |       |       |
+--------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| Nongrantees        | 3     | 34.8  | 2     | 6.8\* | 6.4   | -6    |
|                    | 4.0\* |       |       |       |       |       |
+--------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| Grantees           | 31.5  | 34.3  | 9     | 2.9   | 7.7\* | 166   |
+--------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| > Received grant   | 32.3  | 32.4  | 0     | 4.3   | 6.3   | 47    |
| > for two or more  |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| > years            |       |       |       |       |       |       |
+--------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
|                    |       |       |       |       |       |       |
+--------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| School enrollment  |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| size               |       |       |       |       |       |       |
+--------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| > 400 or fewer     | 29.8  | 33.7  | 13    | 2.8   | 8.7   | 211   |
+--------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| > 401--700         | 32.6  | 34.4  | 6     | 2.1   | 6.3   | 200   |
+--------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| > More than 700    | 34.5  | 36.2  | 5     | 5.3   | 8.7   | 64    |
+--------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
|                    |       |       |       |       |       |       |
+--------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| School level       |       |       |       |       |       |       |
+--------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| > Elementary       | 30.6  | 33.1  | 8     | 2.1   | 6.8   | 224   |
+--------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| > Middle/junior    | 35.6  | 37.9  | 6     | 5.6   | 9.3   | 66    |
| > high             |       |       |       |       |       |       |
+--------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| > High             | 32.5  | 37.0  | 14    | 4.3   | 10.8  | 151   |
| > sch              |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| ool/combined/other |       |       |       |       |       |       |
+--------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
|                    |       |       |       |       |       |       |
+--------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| Urbanicity         |       |       |       |       |       |       |
+--------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| > City             | 29.5  | 32.0  | 8     | 2.8   | 4.4   | 57    |
+--------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| > Urban fringe     | 31.7  | 33.8  | 7     | 2.9   | 9.6   | 231   |
+--------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| > Town             | 34.7  | 36.6  | 5     | 4.4   | 8.8   | 100   |
+--------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| > Rural            | 32.1  | 36.0  | 12    | 2.2   | 10.0  | 355   |
+--------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
|                    |       |       |       |       |       |       |
+--------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| Free/reduced-price |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| lunch eligibility  |       |       |       |       |       |       |
+--------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| > Less than        | 32.4  | 34.8  | 7     | 3.9   | 8.1   | 108   |
| > 50 percent       |       |       |       |       |       |       |
+--------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| > 50 percent or    | 31.2  | 34.2  | 10    | 2.5   | 7.6   | 204   |
| > more             |       |       |       |       |       |       |
+--------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
|                    |       |       |       |       |       |       |
+--------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| Total expenditures |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| per student        |       |       |       |       |       |       |
+--------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| > \$12.00 or less  | 27.6  | 31.4  | 14    | 2.0   | 8.5   | 325   |
+--------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| > \$12.01--\$20.00 | 35.8  | 37.7  | 5     | 3.1   | 10.2  | 229   |
+--------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| > More than        | 34.9  | 37.4  | 7     | 3.8   | 6.5   | 71    |
| > \$20.00          |       |       |       |       |       |       |
+--------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
|                    |       |       |       |       |       |       |
+--------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| Total FTE staff    |       |       |       |       |       |       |
+--------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| > 1.25 or less     | 29.2  | 32.5  | 11    | 3.4   | 7.9   | 132   |
+--------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| > 1.26--1.75       | 35.2  | 37.4  | 6     | 2.1   | 6.9   | 229   |
+--------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| > More than 1.75   | 34.0  | 36.1  | 6     | 2.0   | 8.4   | 320   |
+--------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+

FTE = full-time equivalent.

*Note:* The asterisks (\*) indicate that there is a statistically
significant difference (i.e., *p*-value ≤ .05) between grantee and
nongrantee school libraries.

^a^Statistical significance was not calculated for percentage change.

*Source:* Second evaluation, school library media center survey
questions 4 and 8.

**Exhibit A-23**

**Access to the School Library During Nonschool Hours,\
by School Characteristics, Spring 2005 and 2006**

+--------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| School             | Pe   |      |      |      | Mean |      |      |
| Characteristic     | rcen |      |      |      | Nu   |      |      |
|                    | tage |      |      |      | mber |      |      |
|                    | of   |      |      |      | of   |      |      |
|                    | Sch  |      |      |      | No   |      |      |
|                    | ools |      |      |      | nsch |      |      |
|                    | P    |      |      |      | ool\ |      |      |
|                    | rovi |      |      |      | H    |      |      |
|                    | ding |      |      |      | ours |      |      |
|                    | Ac   |      |      |      | of   |      |      |
|                    | cess |      |      |      | Ac   |      |      |
|                    |      |      |      |      | cess |      |      |
+--------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
|                    | Both | 2005 | 2006 | Nei  | 2005 | 2006 | Pe   |
|                    | Y    | Only | Only | ther |      |      | rcen |
|                    | ears |      |      | Year |      |      | tage |
|                    |      |      |      |      |      |      | C    |
|                    |      |      |      |      |      |      | hang |
|                    |      |      |      |      |      |      | e^a^ |
+--------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
|                    |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+--------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Percentage of all  | 53   | 0    | 3    | 43   | 6.6  | 6.9  | 5    |
| schools            |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+--------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
|                    |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+--------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Nongrantees        | 54\* | 0    | 2    | 44\* | 6    | 6.9  | 3    |
|                    |      |      |      |      | .7\* |      |      |
+--------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Grantees           | 37   | 2\*  | 35\* | 26   | 3.6  | 6.8  | 91   |
+--------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| > Received grant   | 60   | 10   | 11   | 19   | 7.0  | 7.4  | 6    |
| > for two or more  |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
| > years            |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+--------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
|                    |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+--------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| School enrollment  |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
| size               |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+--------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| > 400 or fewer     | 33   | 2    | 39   | 27   | 3.3  | 7.0  | 110  |
+--------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| > 401--700         | 38   | 2    | 33   | 27   | 3.3  | 6.2  | 89   |
+--------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| > More than 700    | 51   | 2    | 27   | 20   | 5.1  | 7.8  | 54   |
+--------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
|                    |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+--------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| School level       |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+--------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| > Elementary       | 32   | 2    | 37   | 29   | 3.0  | 6.2  | 103  |
+--------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| > Middle/junior    | 51   | 0    | 28   | 21   | 4.5  | 8.2  | 81   |
| > high             |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+--------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| > High             | 50   | 2    | 31   | 18   | 4.9  | 8.1  | 66   |
| > sch              |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
| ool/combined/other |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+--------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
|                    |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+--------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Urbanicity         |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+--------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| > City             | 28   | 1    | 27   | 45   | 3.4  | 6.5  | 90   |
+--------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| > Urban fringe     | 28   | 2    | 53   | 18   | 1.9  | 5.5  | 182  |
+--------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| > Town             | 62   | 5    | 26   | 7    | 4.9  | 7.7  | 59   |
+--------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| > Rural            | 41   | 2    | 39   | 18   | 3.8  | 7.3  | 91   |
+--------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
|                    |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+--------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Free/reduced-price |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
| lunch eligibility  |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+--------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| > Less than        | 49   | 0    | 27   | 24   | 4.0  | 6.7  | 67   |
| > 50 percent       |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+--------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| > 50 percent or    | 33   | 3    | 37   | 27   | 3.4  | 6.9  | 103  |
| > more             |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+--------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
|                    |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+--------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Total expenditures |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
| per student        |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+--------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| > \$12.00 or less  | 22   | 1    | 37   | 39   | 2.5  | 6.7  | 171  |
+--------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| > \$12.01--\$20.00 | 57   | 3    | 23   | 16   | 4.2  | 7.3  | 72   |
+--------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| > More than        | 43   | 2    | 42   | 13   | 3.6  | 6.5  | 79   |
| > \$20.00          |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+--------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
|                    |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+--------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Total FTE staff    |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+--------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| > 1.25 or less     | 33   | 2    | 32   | 33   | 3.6  | 7.1  | 96   |
+--------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| > 1.26--1.75       | 44   | 1    | 43   | 11   | 2.8  | 5.8  | 111  |
+--------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| > More than 1.75   | 43   | 2    | 34   | 21   | 4.5  | 7.5  | 66   |
+--------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+

FTE = full-time equivalent.

*Note:* The asterisks (\*) indicate that there is a statistically
significant difference (i.e., *p*-value ≤ .05) between grantee and
nongrantee school libraries. Percentages may not add to 100 because of
rounding.

^a^Statistical significance was not calculated for percentage change.

*Source:* Second evaluation, school library media center survey
questions 5 and 6.

**Exhibit A-24**

**Percentage of School Libraries Using Extended Hours for Various
Activities\
During the 2005--06 School Year, by School Characteristics**

+------------------------+---------+----------+----------+----------+
| School Characteristic  | S       | Open to  | Book     | Other    |
|                        | pecific | Loan     | Clubs    |          |
|                        | P       | Books    |          |          |
|                        | rograms |          |          |          |
+------------------------+---------+----------+----------+----------+
|                        |         |          |          |          |
+------------------------+---------+----------+----------+----------+
| Percentage of all      | 33      | 90       | 13       | 59       |
| schools                |         |          |          |          |
+------------------------+---------+----------+----------+----------+
|                        |         |          |          |          |
+------------------------+---------+----------+----------+----------+
| Nongrantees            | 32      | 90       | 13       | 59       |
+------------------------+---------+----------+----------+----------+
| Grantees               | 43\*    | 92       | 18       | 59       |
+------------------------+---------+----------+----------+----------+
| > Received grant for   | 32      | 90       | 17       | 59       |
| > two or more years    |         |          |          |          |
+------------------------+---------+----------+----------+----------+
|                        |         |          |          |          |
+------------------------+---------+----------+----------+----------+
| School enrollment size |         |          |          |          |
+------------------------+---------+----------+----------+----------+
| > 400 or fewer         | 47      | 93       | 16       | 56       |
+------------------------+---------+----------+----------+----------+
| > 401--700             | 36      | 91       | 17       | 57       |
+------------------------+---------+----------+----------+----------+
| > More than 700        | 48      | 94       | 25       | 77       |
+------------------------+---------+----------+----------+----------+
|                        |         |          |          |          |
+------------------------+---------+----------+----------+----------+
| School level           |         |          |          |          |
+------------------------+---------+----------+----------+----------+
| > Elementary           | 40      | 91       | 15       | 57       |
+------------------------+---------+----------+----------+----------+
| > Middle/junior high   | 45      | 93       | 24       | 66       |
+------------------------+---------+----------+----------+----------+
| > High                 | 50      | 98       | 25       | 63       |
| >                      |         |          |          |          |
|  school/combined/other |         |          |          |          |
+------------------------+---------+----------+----------+----------+
|                        |         |          |          |          |
+------------------------+---------+----------+----------+----------+
| Urbanicity             |         |          |          |          |
+------------------------+---------+----------+----------+----------+
| > City                 | 40      | 86       | 19       | 61       |
+------------------------+---------+----------+----------+----------+
| > Urban fringe         | 42      | 94       | 27       | 56       |
+------------------------+---------+----------+----------+----------+
| > Town                 | 38      | 88       | 10       | 61       |
+------------------------+---------+----------+----------+----------+
| > Rural                | 48      | 98       | 17       | 59       |
+------------------------+---------+----------+----------+----------+
|                        |         |          |          |          |
+------------------------+---------+----------+----------+----------+
| Free/reduced-price     |         |          |          |          |
| lunch eligibility      |         |          |          |          |
+------------------------+---------+----------+----------+----------+
| > Less than 50 percent | 51      | 91       | 22       | 67       |
+------------------------+---------+----------+----------+----------+
| > 50 percent or more   | 40      | 93       | 16       | 57       |
+------------------------+---------+----------+----------+----------+
|                        |         |          |          |          |
+------------------------+---------+----------+----------+----------+
| Total expenditures per |         |          |          |          |
| student                |         |          |          |          |
+------------------------+---------+----------+----------+----------+
| > \$12.00 or less      | 41      | 90       | 16       | 61       |
+------------------------+---------+----------+----------+----------+
| > \$12.01--\$20.00     | 51      | 91       | 19       | 68       |
+------------------------+---------+----------+----------+----------+
| > More than \$20.00    | 43      | 95       | 17       | 59       |
+------------------------+---------+----------+----------+----------+
|                        |         |          |          |          |
+------------------------+---------+----------+----------+----------+
| Total FTE staff        |         |          |          |          |
+------------------------+---------+----------+----------+----------+
| > 1.25 or less         | 48      | 91       | 18       | 55       |
+------------------------+---------+----------+----------+----------+
| > 1.26--1.75           | 36      | 94       | 17       | 65       |
+------------------------+---------+----------+----------+----------+
| > More than 1.75       | 40      | 94       | 21       | 62       |
+------------------------+---------+----------+----------+----------+

FTE = full-time equivalent.

*Note:* The asterisk (\*) indicates that there is a statistically
significant difference (i.e., *p*-value ≤ .05) between grantee and
nongrantee school libraries.

*Source:* Second evaluation, school library media center survey question
7.

**Exhibit A-25**

**Percentage of School Libraries Reporting Major or Moderate Barriers to
Providing Services During Nonschool Hours,\
by School Characteristics, Spring 2006**

<table style="width:100%;">
<colgroup>
<col style="width: 19%" />
<col style="width: 8%" />
<col style="width: 8%" />
<col style="width: 8%" />
<col style="width: 8%" />
<col style="width: 8%" />
<col style="width: 8%" />
<col style="width: 8%" />
<col style="width: 8%" />
<col style="width: 8%" />
<col style="width: 8%" />
</colgroup>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td rowspan="2">School Characteristic</td>
<td colspan="2">Availability of Library Staff</td>
<td colspan="2">Transportation for Students</td>
<td colspan="2">Transportation for Parents</td>
<td colspan="2">Availability of Parents</td>
<td colspan="2">Safety Concerns</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Major Barrier</td>
<td>Moderate Barrier</td>
<td>Major Barrier</td>
<td>Moderate Barrier</td>
<td>Major Barrier</td>
<td>Moderate Barrier</td>
<td>Major Barrier</td>
<td>Moderate Barrier</td>
<td>Major Barrier</td>
<td>Moderate Barrier</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Percentage of all schools</td>
<td>50</td>
<td>17</td>
<td>47</td>
<td>24</td>
<td>26</td>
<td>30</td>
<td>37</td>
<td>35</td>
<td>10</td>
<td>14</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Nongrantees</td>
<td>50*</td>
<td>17</td>
<td>47*</td>
<td>24</td>
<td>26*</td>
<td>30</td>
<td>38*</td>
<td>35</td>
<td>10</td>
<td>14</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Grantees</td>
<td>42</td>
<td>25*</td>
<td>39</td>
<td>23</td>
<td>20</td>
<td>31</td>
<td>30</td>
<td>37</td>
<td>10</td>
<td>17</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><blockquote>
<p>Received grant for two or more years</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td>40</td>
<td>22</td>
<td>51</td>
<td>19</td>
<td>43</td>
<td>24</td>
<td>46</td>
<td>27</td>
<td>17</td>
<td>14</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>School enrollment size</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><blockquote>
<p>400 or fewer</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td>46</td>
<td>27</td>
<td>43</td>
<td>24</td>
<td>20</td>
<td>30</td>
<td>29</td>
<td>38</td>
<td>11</td>
<td>18</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><blockquote>
<p>401–700</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td>40</td>
<td>23</td>
<td>36</td>
<td>25</td>
<td>21</td>
<td>31</td>
<td>30</td>
<td>34</td>
<td>9</td>
<td>17</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><blockquote>
<p>More than 700</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td>33</td>
<td>24</td>
<td>35</td>
<td>11</td>
<td>19</td>
<td>31</td>
<td>34</td>
<td>44</td>
<td>14</td>
<td>13</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>School level</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><blockquote>
<p>Elementary</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td>44</td>
<td>22</td>
<td>39</td>
<td>24</td>
<td>21</td>
<td>30</td>
<td>28</td>
<td>37</td>
<td>11</td>
<td>19</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><blockquote>
<p>Middle/junior high</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td>45</td>
<td>28</td>
<td>35</td>
<td>21</td>
<td>25</td>
<td>19</td>
<td>36</td>
<td>33</td>
<td>3</td>
<td>17</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><blockquote>
<p>High school/combined/other</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td>30</td>
<td>35</td>
<td>42</td>
<td>20</td>
<td>13</td>
<td>43</td>
<td>33</td>
<td>42</td>
<td>10</td>
<td>8</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Urbanicity</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><blockquote>
<p>City</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td>44</td>
<td>24</td>
<td>31</td>
<td>26</td>
<td>17</td>
<td>35</td>
<td>31</td>
<td>35</td>
<td>15</td>
<td>21</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><blockquote>
<p>Urban fringe</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td>44</td>
<td>28</td>
<td>43</td>
<td>13</td>
<td>19</td>
<td>22</td>
<td>24</td>
<td>43</td>
<td>6</td>
<td>23</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><blockquote>
<p>Town</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td>36</td>
<td>25</td>
<td>37</td>
<td>36</td>
<td>19</td>
<td>27</td>
<td>35</td>
<td>41</td>
<td>7</td>
<td>11</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><blockquote>
<p>Rural</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td>41</td>
<td>24</td>
<td>47</td>
<td>18</td>
<td>24</td>
<td>32</td>
<td>29</td>
<td>36</td>
<td>9</td>
<td>12</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><blockquote>
<p>Free/reduced-price lunch eligibility</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><blockquote>
<p>Less than 50 percent</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td>45</td>
<td>21</td>
<td>35</td>
<td>21</td>
<td>12</td>
<td>38</td>
<td>27</td>
<td>42</td>
<td>4</td>
<td>4</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><blockquote>
<p>50 percent or more</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td>41</td>
<td>26</td>
<td>41</td>
<td>23</td>
<td>23</td>
<td>28</td>
<td>31</td>
<td>36</td>
<td>12</td>
<td>21</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Total expenditures per student</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><blockquote>
<p>$12.00 or less</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td>43</td>
<td>23</td>
<td>44</td>
<td>25</td>
<td>24</td>
<td>30</td>
<td>33</td>
<td>38</td>
<td>11</td>
<td>22</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><blockquote>
<p>$12.01–$20.00</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td>34</td>
<td>27</td>
<td>35</td>
<td>24</td>
<td>14</td>
<td>29</td>
<td>24</td>
<td>53</td>
<td>7</td>
<td>13</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><blockquote>
<p>More than $20.00</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td>42</td>
<td>26</td>
<td>37</td>
<td>21</td>
<td>19</td>
<td>33</td>
<td>29</td>
<td>30</td>
<td>9</td>
<td>14</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Total FTE staff</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><blockquote>
<p>1.25 or less</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td>45</td>
<td>23</td>
<td>41</td>
<td>25</td>
<td>22</td>
<td>29</td>
<td>28</td>
<td>36</td>
<td>11</td>
<td>18</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><blockquote>
<p>1.26–1.75</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td>41</td>
<td>30</td>
<td>36</td>
<td>22</td>
<td>20</td>
<td>34</td>
<td>29</td>
<td>45</td>
<td>11</td>
<td>15</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><blockquote>
<p>More than 1.75</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td>34</td>
<td>27</td>
<td>38</td>
<td>16</td>
<td>16</td>
<td>31</td>
<td>37</td>
<td>33</td>
<td>8</td>
<td>16</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>

FTE = full-time equivalent.

*Note:* The asterisks (\*) indicate that there is a statistically
significant difference (i.e., *p*-value ≤ .05) between grantee and
nongrantee school libraries.

*Source:* Second evaluation, school library media center survey question
16.

**Exhibit A-26**

**Percentage of School Libraries Reporting Barriers to Providing
Services During Nonschool Hours,\
by Grantee Status, Spring 2006**

  ------------------------- ----------- ----------- ----------- -----------
  Grantee Status            No Barrier  Small       Moderate    Major
                                        Barrier     Barrier     Barrier

  **Grantee**                                                   

  Availability of library   20          13          25\*        42
  staff                                                         

  Transportation for        19          19\*        23          39
  students                                                      

  Transportation for        23          27          31          20
  parents                                                       

  Availability of parents   10          23\*        37          30

  Safety concerns           53          20          17          10

                                                                

  **Nongrantee**                                                

  Availability of library   21          12          17          50\*
  staff                                                         

  Transportation for        18          11          24          47\*
  students                                                      

  Transportation for        20          23          30          26\*
  parents                                                       

  Availability of parents   14          13          35          38\*

  Safety concerns           51          26\*        14          10
  ------------------------- ----------- ----------- ----------- -----------

*Note:* The asterisks (\*) indicate that there is a statistically
significant difference (i.e., *p*-value ≤ .05) between grantee and
nongrantee school libraries. Percentages may not add to 100 because of
rounding.

*Source:* Second evaluation, school library media center survey question
16.

**Exhibit A-27**

**Mean Usage of School Library Resources per Student,\
by School Characteristics, Spring 2005 and 2006**

+--------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| School             | N     |       |       | N     |       |       |
| Characteristic     | umber |       |       | umber |       |       |
|                    | of    |       |       | of    |       |       |
|                    | V     |       |       | Mate  |       |       |
|                    | isits |       |       | rials |       |       |
|                    | in a  |       |       | Ch    |       |       |
|                    | Ty    |       |       | ecked |       |       |
|                    | pical |       |       | Out   |       |       |
|                    | Week  |       |       |       |       |       |
+--------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
|                    | S     | S     | Perce | S     | S     | Perce |
|                    | pring | pring | ntage | pring | pring | ntage |
|                    | 2005  | 2006  | Chan  | 2005  | 2006  | Chan  |
|                    |       |       | ge^a^ |       |       | ge^a^ |
+--------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
|                    |       |       |       |       |       |       |
+--------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| Mean of all        | 1.2   | 1.2   | 0     | 2.0   | 1.9   | -5    |
| schools            |       |       |       |       |       |       |
+--------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
|                    |       |       |       |       |       |       |
+--------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| Nongrantees        | 1.2   | 1.2   | 0     | 2.0   | 1.9   | -5    |
+--------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| Grantees           | 1.2   | 1.4\* | 17    | 2.0   | 2.2   | 10    |
+--------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| > Received grant   | 1.0   | 1.8   | 80    | 3.0   | 3.1   | 3     |
| > for two or more  |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| > years            |       |       |       |       |       |       |
+--------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
|                    |       |       |       |       |       |       |
+--------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| School enrollment  |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| size               |       |       |       |       |       |       |
+--------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| > 400 or fewer     | 1.3   | 1.5   | 15    | 2.3   | 2.7   | 17    |
+--------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| > 401--700         | 1.1   | 1.4   | 27    | 1.9   | 2.0   | 5     |
+--------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| > More than 700    | 1.0   | 1.1   | 10    | 1.0   | 1.1   | 10    |
+--------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
|                    |       |       |       |       |       |       |
+--------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| School level       |       |       |       |       |       |       |
+--------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| > Elementary       | 1.4   | 1.6   | 14    | 2.4   | 2.6   | 8     |
+--------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| > Middle/junior    | 0.9   | 1.1   | 22    | 0.8   | 1.0   | 25    |
| > high             |       |       |       |       |       |       |
+--------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| > High             | 0.8   | 0.9   | 13    | 0.8   | 0.9   | 13    |
| > sch              |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| ool/combined/other |       |       |       |       |       |       |
+--------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
|                    |       |       |       |       |       |       |
+--------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| Urbanicity         |       |       |       |       |       |       |
+--------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| > City             | 1.2   | 1.5   | 25    | 1.7   | 1.6   | -6    |
+--------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| > Urban fringe     | 1.1   | 1.2   | 9     | 2.0   | 1.9   | -5    |
+--------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| > Town             | 1.3   | 1.4   | 8     | 2.5   | 3.1   | 24    |
+--------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| > Rural            | 1.3   | 1.5   | 15    | 2.0   | 2.5   | 25    |
+--------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
|                    |       |       |       |       |       |       |
+--------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| Free/reduced-price |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| lunch eligibility  |       |       |       |       |       |       |
+--------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| > Less than        | 1.2   | 1.3   | 8     | 2.3   | 2.4   | 4     |
| > 50 percent       |       |       |       |       |       |       |
+--------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| > 50 percent or    | 1.2   | 1.5   | 25    | 1.9   | 2.1   | 11    |
| > more             |       |       |       |       |       |       |
+--------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
|                    |       |       |       |       |       |       |
+--------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| Total expenditures |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| per student        |       |       |       |       |       |       |
+--------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| > \$12.00 or less  | 1.2   | 1.6   | 33    | 2.0   | 2.1   | 5     |
+--------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| > \$12.01--\$20.00 | 1.2   | 1.4   | 17    | 1.7   | 2.3   | 35    |
+--------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| > More than        | 1.3   | 1.4   | 8     | 2.1   | 2.3   | 10    |
| > \$20.00          |       |       |       |       |       |       |
+--------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
|                    |       |       |       |       |       |       |
+--------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| Total FTE staff    |       |       |       |       |       |       |
+--------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| > 1.25 or less     | 1.1   | 1.4   | 27    | 1.6   | 1.8   | 13    |
+--------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| > 1.26--1.75       | 1.5   | 1.7   | 13    | 2.6   | 2.8   | 8     |
+--------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| > More than 1.75   | 1.2   | 1.3   | 8     | 2.4   | 2.4   | 0     |
+--------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+

FTE = full-time equivalent.

*Note:* The asterisk (\*) indicates that there is a statistically
significant difference (i.e., *p*-value ≤ .05) between grantee and
nongrantee school libraries.

^a^Statistical significance was not calculated for percentage change.

*Source:* Second evaluation, school library media center survey
questions 1, 2, and 3.

**Exhibit A-28**

**Percentage of School Libraries Offering Selected Services and the
Frequency of Those Services,\
by Grantee Status, 2005--06 School Year**

  --------------------------- ----------- ----------- ---------- -------- ------------
  Grantee Status and Service  Frequency                                   
                              of Services                                 

  **Grantees**                Daily       Weekly      Monthly    Never    Not
                                                                          Applicable

                                                                          

  Provide reference                                                       
  assistance to                                                           

  Students                    76          17          5          0        2\*

  Teachers                    53          30          13         1        2

  Administrators              22          18          30         20       10

  Help with sources outside   26          20          36         12       7
  the school                                                              

                                                                          

                              Monthly     Quarterly   Annually   Never    Not
                                                                          Applicable

                                                                          

  Assist teachers with        37          32\*        10         14       7
  research projects for                                                   
  students                                                                

  Work on curriculum issues   42\*        18          18         14       8

  Participate in team         52\*        18          10         15       5
  meetings                                                                

  Coordinate textbook         10          5           16         40       30
  selection                                                               

  Coordinate professional     13\*        20\*        26         27       14
  development on technology                                               

                                                                          

                                                                          

  **Nongrantees**             Daily       Weekly      Monthly    Never    Not
                                                                          Applicable

                                                                          

  Provide reference                                                       
  assistance to                                                           

  Students                    78          16          6          0        1

  Teachers                    57          29          11         1        2

  Administrators              18          20          31         16       15\*

  Help with sources outside   24          24          34         9        9
  the school                                                              

                              Monthly     Quarterly   Annually   Never    Not
                                                                          Applicable

                                                                          

  Assist teachers with        35          20          18\*       17       10
  research projects for                                                   
  students                                                                

  Work on curriculum issues   29          18          22         18       14\*

  Participate in team         41          20          13         15       12\*
  meetings                                                                

  Coordinate textbook         12          4           18         42       25
  selection                                                               

  Coordinate professional     7           14          29         29       21\*
  development on technology                                               
  --------------------------- ----------- ----------- ---------- -------- ------------

*Note:* The asterisks (\*) indicate that there is a statistically
significant difference (i.e., *p*-value ≤ .05) between grantee and
nongrantee school libraries. Percentages may not add to 100 because of
rounding.

*Source:* Second evaluation, school library media center survey question
10.

**Exhibit A-29**

**Percentage of School Libraries Reporting That They Provide Selected
Services, by the Highest Listed Level of Frequency\
and School Characteristics, 2005--06 School Year**

<table style="width:100%;">
<colgroup>
<col style="width: 26%" />
<col style="width: 8%" />
<col style="width: 0%" />
<col style="width: 8%" />
<col style="width: 8%" />
<col style="width: 8%" />
<col style="width: 0%" />
<col style="width: 8%" />
<col style="width: 8%" />
<col style="width: 8%" />
<col style="width: 8%" />
<col style="width: 8%" />
</colgroup>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td rowspan="3">School Characteristic</td>
<td colspan="6">Provide Services Daily</td>
<td colspan="5">Provide Services Monthly</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td colspan="4">Provide Reference Assistance to</td>
<td colspan="2" rowspan="2">Help Use Information Outside the School</td>
<td rowspan="2">Assist With Research Projects</td>
<td rowspan="2">Work on Curriculum Issues</td>
<td rowspan="2">Participate in Team Meetings</td>
<td rowspan="2">Coordinate Textbook Selection</td>
<td rowspan="2">Coordinate Professional Development on Technology</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td colspan="2">Students</td>
<td>Teachers</td>
<td>Administrators</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Percentage of all schools</td>
<td>78</td>
<td colspan="2">57</td>
<td>18</td>
<td>25</td>
<td colspan="2">35</td>
<td>30</td>
<td>41</td>
<td>12</td>
<td>7</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Nongrantees</td>
<td>78</td>
<td colspan="2">57</td>
<td>18</td>
<td>24</td>
<td colspan="2">35</td>
<td>29</td>
<td>41</td>
<td>12</td>
<td>7</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Grantees</td>
<td>76</td>
<td colspan="2">53</td>
<td>22</td>
<td>26</td>
<td colspan="2">37</td>
<td>42*</td>
<td>52*</td>
<td>10</td>
<td>13*</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><blockquote>
<p>Received grant for two or more years</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td>81</td>
<td colspan="2">60</td>
<td>27</td>
<td>34</td>
<td colspan="2">23</td>
<td>42</td>
<td>52</td>
<td>5</td>
<td>5</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>School enrollment size</td>
<td></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><blockquote>
<p>400 or fewer</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td>73</td>
<td colspan="2">49</td>
<td>21</td>
<td>20</td>
<td colspan="2">30</td>
<td>38</td>
<td>52</td>
<td>6</td>
<td>10</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><blockquote>
<p>401–700</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td>74</td>
<td colspan="2">53</td>
<td>23</td>
<td>30</td>
<td colspan="2">39</td>
<td>46</td>
<td>54</td>
<td>13</td>
<td>13</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><blockquote>
<p>More than 700</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td>89</td>
<td colspan="2">69</td>
<td>24</td>
<td>36</td>
<td colspan="2">53</td>
<td>46</td>
<td>49</td>
<td>12</td>
<td>23</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>School level</td>
<td></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><blockquote>
<p>Elementary</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td>72</td>
<td colspan="2">53</td>
<td>22</td>
<td>24</td>
<td colspan="2">34</td>
<td>41</td>
<td>52</td>
<td>10</td>
<td>13</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><blockquote>
<p>Middle/junior high</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td>85</td>
<td colspan="2">68</td>
<td>32</td>
<td>37</td>
<td colspan="2">52</td>
<td>59</td>
<td>49</td>
<td>20</td>
<td>13</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><blockquote>
<p>High school/combined/other</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td>83</td>
<td colspan="2">45</td>
<td>15</td>
<td>28</td>
<td colspan="2">36</td>
<td>35</td>
<td>55</td>
<td>3</td>
<td>12</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Urbanicity</td>
<td></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><blockquote>
<p>City</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td>79</td>
<td colspan="2">60</td>
<td>27</td>
<td>27</td>
<td colspan="2">42</td>
<td>44</td>
<td>55</td>
<td>18</td>
<td>18</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><blockquote>
<p>Urban fringe</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td>71</td>
<td colspan="2">51</td>
<td>29</td>
<td>26</td>
<td colspan="2">36</td>
<td>33</td>
<td>45</td>
<td>3</td>
<td>10</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><blockquote>
<p>Town</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td>75</td>
<td colspan="2">56</td>
<td>18</td>
<td>28</td>
<td colspan="2">31</td>
<td>56</td>
<td>56</td>
<td>5</td>
<td>11</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><blockquote>
<p>Rural</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td>74</td>
<td colspan="2">46</td>
<td>16</td>
<td>24</td>
<td colspan="2">34</td>
<td>39</td>
<td>51</td>
<td>6</td>
<td>10</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Free/reduced-price lunch eligibility</td>
<td></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><blockquote>
<p>Less than 50 percent</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td>84</td>
<td colspan="2">52</td>
<td>24</td>
<td>20</td>
<td colspan="2">42</td>
<td>46</td>
<td>62</td>
<td>3</td>
<td>14</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><blockquote>
<p>50 percent or more</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td>73</td>
<td colspan="2">54</td>
<td>22</td>
<td>28</td>
<td colspan="2">35</td>
<td>41</td>
<td>49</td>
<td>12</td>
<td>12</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Total expenditures per student</td>
<td></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><blockquote>
<p>$12.00 or less</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td>70</td>
<td colspan="2">50</td>
<td>23</td>
<td>26</td>
<td colspan="2">38</td>
<td>40</td>
<td>54</td>
<td>7</td>
<td>7</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><blockquote>
<p>$12.01–$20.00</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td>80</td>
<td colspan="2">54</td>
<td>21</td>
<td>27</td>
<td colspan="2">35</td>
<td>48</td>
<td>58</td>
<td>11</td>
<td>15</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><blockquote>
<p>More than $20.00</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td>83</td>
<td colspan="2">59</td>
<td>22</td>
<td>27</td>
<td colspan="2">40</td>
<td>46</td>
<td>48</td>
<td>12</td>
<td>19</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Total FTE staff</td>
<td></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><blockquote>
<p>1.25 or less</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td>77</td>
<td colspan="2">53</td>
<td>23</td>
<td>27</td>
<td colspan="2">37</td>
<td>36</td>
<td>49</td>
<td>11</td>
<td>11</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><blockquote>
<p>1.26–1.75</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td>74</td>
<td colspan="2">61</td>
<td>20</td>
<td>19</td>
<td colspan="2">34</td>
<td>46</td>
<td>55</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>13</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><blockquote>
<p>More than 1.75</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td>72</td>
<td colspan="2">47</td>
<td>22</td>
<td>30</td>
<td colspan="2">39</td>
<td>58</td>
<td>60</td>
<td>18</td>
<td>18</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>

FTE = full-time equivalent.

*Note:* The asterisks (\*) indicate that there is a statistically
significant difference (i.e., *p*-value ≤ .05) between grantee and
nongrantee school libraries.

*Source:* Second evaluation, school library media center survey question
10.

**Exhibit A-30**

**Percentage of School Libraries Indicating Changes in Their Provision
of Selected Services,\
by Grantee Status and Type of Service, 2005--06 School Year**

  ----------------- ---------- ---------- -------- ------------ ----------- ------------- ---------- -------- ------------ -----------
  Type of Service   Grantees                                                Nongrantees                                    

                    New in     Expanded   No       Decreased or Not         New in        Expanded   No       Decreased or Not
                    2005--06   in         Change   Eliminated   Performed   2005--06      in         Change   Eliminated   Performed
                               2005--06            in 2005--06  in Either                 2005--06            in 2005--06  in Either
                                                                Year                                                       Year

                                                                                                                           

  Assist in         7\*        35\*       37       2            20          3             22         48\*     1            26\*
  research projects                                                                                                        

  Work on           5          35\*       41       2\*          17          4             19         48\*     1            28\*
  curriculum issues                                                                                                        

  Participate in    9\*        27\*       46       2            17          3             20         51       2            24\*
  team meetings                                                                                                            

  Coordinate        5\*        9          24       2\*          60          1             7          32\*     0            60
  textbook                                                                                                                 
  selection                                                                                                                

  Coordinate        10\*       31\*       25       4\*          29          1             21         36\*     2            40\*
  professional                                                                                                             
  development on                                                                                                           
  technology                                                                                                               

  Work with         6          43\*       39       1\*          11          5             28         53       0            14
  teachers on                                                                                                              
  resources for                                                                                                            
  reading/English                                                                                                          

  Work with         3          28\*       33       2            33          4             17         43\*     1            36
  teachers on                                                                                                              
  curriculum                                                                                                               
  development in                                                                                                           
  reading/English                                                                                                          

  Teach             6\*        24\*       28       3            39          3             15         30       2            49\*
  reading/English                                                                                                          
  with classroom                                                                                                           
  teachers                                                                                                                 

  Evaluate          4          16\*       30       2            48          3             10         34       1            52
  reading/English                                                                                                          
  with classroom                                                                                                           
  teachers                                                                                                                 

  Instruct on       5\*        46\*       39       2            7           3             33         50\*     2            13\*
  information                                                                                                              
  skills                                                                                                                   

  Coordinate family 17\*       21\*       28       1            34          3             10         29       2            55\*
  literacy nights                                                                                                          

  Coordinate junior 5\*        4          10       2            79          0             4          11       1            83
  scholars                                                                                                                 
  after-school                                                                                                             
  programs                                                                                                                 

  Operate           23\*       11\*       14       3\*          49          1             7          14       2            76\*
  after-school                                                                                                             
  program with                                                                                                             
  library                                                                                                                  
  orientation                                                                                                              

  Coordinate book   6          12\*       21\*     4            57          4             8          16       4            68\*
  clubs                                                                                                                    
  ----------------- ---------- ---------- -------- ------------ ----------- ------------- ---------- -------- ------------ -----------

*Note:* The asterisks (\*) indicate that there is a statistically
significant difference (i.e., *p*-value ≤ .05) between grantee and
nongrantee school libraries. Percentages may not add to 100 because of
rounding.

*Source:* Second evaluation, school library media center survey question
15.

**Exhibit A-31**

**Percentage of School Libraries Providing Selected New or Expanded
General Programs,\
by School Characteristics, 2005--06 School Year**

+--------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+------+
| School       | A     | Work  | P     | Coord | Coord | Pr    | Co   |
| Ch           | ssist | on    | artic | inate | inate | ovide | ordi |
| aracteristic | With  | Curri | ipate | Tex   | Pr    | I     | nate |
|              | Res   | culum | in    | tbook | ofess | nstru | Ju   |
|              | earch | I     | Team  | Sele  | ional | ction | nior |
|              | Pro   | ssues | Mee   | ction | D     | on    | Scho |
|              | jects |       | tings |       | evelo | I     | lars |
|              |       |       |       |       | pment | nform | Afte |
|              |       |       |       |       | on    | ation | r-Sc |
|              |       |       |       |       | Techn | S     | hool |
|              |       |       |       |       | ology | kills | Prog |
|              |       |       |       |       |       |       | rams |
+--------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+------+
|              |       |       |       |       |       |       |      |
+--------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+------+
| Percentage   | 25    | 24    | 24    | 8     | 23    | 36    | 4    |
| of all       |       |       |       |       |       |       |      |
| schools      |       |       |       |       |       |       |      |
+--------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+------+
|              |       |       |       |       |       |       |      |
+--------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+------+
| Nongrantees  | 24    | 23    | 23    | 8     | 22    | 36    | 4    |
+--------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+------+
| Grantees     | 42\*  | 40\*  | 36\*  | 14\*  | 42\*  | 52\*  | 9\*  |
+--------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+------+
| > Received   | 31    | 27    | 16    | 13    | 30    | 35    | 6    |
| > grant for  |       |       |       |       |       |       |      |
| > two or     |       |       |       |       |       |       |      |
| > more years |       |       |       |       |       |       |      |
+--------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+------+
|              |       |       |       |       |       |       |      |
+--------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+------+
| School       |       |       |       |       |       |       |      |
| enrollment   |       |       |       |       |       |       |      |
| size         |       |       |       |       |       |       |      |
+--------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+------+
| > 400 or     | 40    | 41    | 33    | 12    | 40    | 53    | 10   |
| > fewer      |       |       |       |       |       |       |      |
+--------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+------+
| > 401--700   | 43    | 39    | 39    | 18    | 42    | 51    | 8    |
+--------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+------+
| > More than  | 47    | 40    | 35    | 9     | 43    | 49    | 8    |
| > 700        |       |       |       |       |       |       |      |
+--------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+------+
|              |       |       |       |       |       |       |      |
+--------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+------+
| School level |       |       |       |       |       |       |      |
+--------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+------+
| > Elementary | 40    | 40    | 36    | 13    | 39    | 50    | 9    |
+--------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+------+
| > M          | 52    | 37    | 30    | 18    | 56    | 56    | 5    |
| iddle/junior |       |       |       |       |       |       |      |
| > high       |       |       |       |       |       |       |      |
+--------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+------+
| > High       | 45    | 41    | 39    | 15    | 40    | 55    | 13   |
| > school/co  |       |       |       |       |       |       |      |
| mbined/other |       |       |       |       |       |       |      |
+--------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+------+
|              |       |       |       |       |       |       |      |
+--------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+------+
| Urbanicity   |       |       |       |       |       |       |      |
+--------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+------+
| > City       | 37    | 35    | 31    | 14    | 34    | 45    | 7    |
+--------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+------+
| > Urban      | 39    | 38    | 31    | 13    | 43    | 55    | 11   |
| > fringe     |       |       |       |       |       |       |      |
+--------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+------+
| > Town       | 45    | 43    | 43    | 12    | 47    | 55    | 4    |
+--------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+------+
| > Rural      | 47    | 45    | 39    | 15    | 46    | 55    | 12   |
+--------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+------+
|              |       |       |       |       |       |       |      |
+--------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+------+
| Free/r       |       |       |       |       |       |       |      |
| educed-price |       |       |       |       |       |       |      |
| lunch        |       |       |       |       |       |       |      |
| eligibility  |       |       |       |       |       |       |      |
+--------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+------+
| > Less than  | 50    | 45    | 31    | 7     | 39    | 47    | 10   |
| > 50 percent |       |       |       |       |       |       |      |
+--------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+------+
| > 50 percent | 39    | 38    | 38    | 16    | 42    | 53    | 9    |
| > or more    |       |       |       |       |       |       |      |
+--------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+------+
|              |       |       |       |       |       |       |      |
+--------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+------+
| Total        |       |       |       |       |       |       |      |
| expenditures |       |       |       |       |       |       |      |
| per student  |       |       |       |       |       |       |      |
+--------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+------+
| > \$12.00 or | 43    | 40    | 38    | 16    | 37    | 50    | 9    |
| > less       |       |       |       |       |       |       |      |
+--------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+------+
| > \$12       | 44    | 51    | 39    | 11    | 50    | 56    | 6    |
| .01--\$20.00 |       |       |       |       |       |       |      |
+--------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+------+
| > More than  | 43    | 38    | 35    | 12    | 46    | 57    | 10   |
| > \$20.00    |       |       |       |       |       |       |      |
+--------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+------+
|              |       |       |       |       |       |       |      |
+--------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+------+
| Total FTE    |       |       |       |       |       |       |      |
| staff        |       |       |       |       |       |       |      |
+--------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+------+
| > 1.25 or    | 38    | 37    | 33    | 16    | 38    | 46    | 9    |
| > less       |       |       |       |       |       |       |      |
+--------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+------+
| > 1.26--1.75 | 51    | 47    | 45    | 8     | 51    | 67    | 11   |
+--------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+------+
| > More than  | 42    | 42    | 32    | 13    | 43    | 50    | 7    |
| > 1.75       |       |       |       |       |       |       |      |
+--------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+------+

FTE = full-time equivalent.

*Note:* The asterisks (\*) indicate that there is a statistically
significant difference (i.e., *p*-value ≤ .05) between grantee and
nongrantee school libraries.

*Source:* Second evaluation, school library media center survey question
15.

**Exhibit A-32**

**Percentage of School Libraries Providing Selected New or Expanded
Programs Related to Reading/English,\
by School Characteristics, 2005--06 School Year**

+-----------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| School          | Work |      |      |      | Fa   | Pro  | Co   |
| Characteristic  | With |      |      |      | mily | vide | ordi |
|                 | C    |      |      |      | Lite | Afte | nate |
|                 | lass |      |      |      | racy | r-Sc | Book |
|                 | room |      |      |      | Ni   | hool | C    |
|                 | Teac |      |      |      | ghts | Pro  | lubs |
|                 | hers |      |      |      |      | gram |      |
|                 | on   |      |      |      |      | With |      |
|                 |      |      |      |      |      | Lib  |      |
|                 |      |      |      |      |      | rary |      |
|                 |      |      |      |      |      | Ori  |      |
|                 |      |      |      |      |      | enta |      |
|                 |      |      |      |      |      | tion |      |
+-----------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
|                 | S    | Cu   | Teac | Ev   |      |      |      |
|                 | elec | rric | hing | alua |      |      |      |
|                 | ting | ulum | Rea  | ting |      |      |      |
|                 | R    | Dev  | ding | Rea  |      |      |      |
|                 | esou | elop | /Eng | ding |      |      |      |
|                 | rces | ment | lish | /Eng |      |      |      |
|                 |      |      |      | lish |      |      |      |
|                 |      |      |      | Cu   |      |      |      |
|                 |      |      |      | rric |      |      |      |
|                 |      |      |      | ulum |      |      |      |
+-----------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
|                 |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+-----------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Percentage of   | 33   | 21   | 18   | 13   | 14   | 9    | 12   |
| all schools     |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+-----------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
|                 |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+-----------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Nongrantees     | 33   | 20   | 18   | 12   | 13   | 8    | 12   |
+-----------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Grantees        | 49\* | 32\* | 30\* | 20\* | 38\* | 34\* | 18\* |
+-----------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| > Received      | 30   | 25   | 21   | 11   | 32   | 19   | 16   |
| > grant for two |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
| > or more years |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+-----------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
|                 |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+-----------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| School          |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
| enrollment size |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+-----------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| > 400 or fewer  | 51   | 32   | 29   | 19   | 43   | 40   | 17   |
+-----------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| > 401--700      | 42   | 28   | 28   | 24   | 32   | 26   | 17   |
+-----------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| > More than 700 | 60   | 41   | 35   | 13   | 37   | 33   | 23   |
+-----------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
|                 |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+-----------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| School level    |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+-----------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| > Elementary    | 45   | 30   | 27   | 19   | 39   | 34   | 15   |
+-----------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| > Middle/junior | 64   | 49   | 41   | 22   | 37   | 34   | 27   |
| > high          |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+-----------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| > High          | 54   | 29   | 30   | 21   | 34   | 33   | 24   |
| > school        |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
| /combined/other |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+-----------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
|                 |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+-----------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Urbanicity      |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+-----------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| > City          | 29   | 21   | 22   | 18   | 32   | 29   | 21   |
+-----------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| > Urban fringe  | 52   | 22   | 26   | 12   | 35   | 30   | 16   |
+-----------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| > Town          | 58   | 53   | 35   | 28   | 47   | 35   | 7    |
+-----------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| > Rural         | 62   | 38   | 37   | 22   | 40   | 40   | 20   |
+-----------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
|                 |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+-----------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Fre             |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
| e/reduced-price |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
| lunch           |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
| eligibility     |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+-----------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| > Less than     | 56   | 31   | 32   | 25   | 38   | 32   | 21   |
| > 50 percent    |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+-----------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| > 50 percent or | 46   | 32   | 29   | 18   | 37   | 34   | 17   |
| > more          |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+-----------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
|                 |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+-----------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Total           |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
| expenditures    |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
| per student     |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+-----------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| > \$12.00 or    | 47   | 30   | 29   | 20   | 32   | 27   | 21   |
| > less          |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+-----------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| > \             | 60   | 41   | 38   | 32   | 39   | 41   | 15   |
| $12.01--\$20.00 |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+-----------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| > More than     | 47   | 32   | 26   | 17   | 45   | 39   | 17   |
| > \$20.00       |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+-----------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
|                 |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+-----------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Total FTE staff |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+-----------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| > 1.25 or less  | 43   | 27   | 26   | 18   | 33   | 25   | 19   |
+-----------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| > 1.26--1.75    | 62   | 42   | 31   | 22   | 51   | 53   | 16   |
+-----------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| > More than     | 50   | 34   | 37   | 22   | 37   | 35   | 17   |
| > 1.75          |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+-----------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+

FTE = full-time equivalent.

*Note:* The asterisks (\*) indicate that there is a statistically
significant difference (i.e., *p*-value ≤ .05) between grantee and
nongrantee school libraries.

*Source:* Second evaluation, school library media center survey question
15.

**Exhibit A-33**

**Mean Number of Staff per School Library and Pupils per Librarian,\
by School Characteristics, Spring 2005 and 2006**

<table>
<colgroup>
<col style="width: 29%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
</colgroup>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td rowspan="2">School Characteristic</td>
<td colspan="3">Full-Time Staff</td>
<td colspan="3">Part-Time Staff<sup>a</sup></td>
<td colspan="3">Mean Number of Pupils<br />
per Librarian per School</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Spring 2005</td>
<td>Spring 2006</td>
<td>Per-centage Change<sup>b</sup></td>
<td>Spring 2005</td>
<td>Spring 2006</td>
<td>Per-centage Change<sup>b</sup></td>
<td>Spring 2005</td>
<td>Spring 2006</td>
<td>Per-centage Change<sup>b</sup></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Mean of all schools</td>
<td>1.2</td>
<td>1.2</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>0.5</td>
<td>0.5</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>448.8</td>
<td>446.2</td>
<td>-1</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Nongrantees</td>
<td>1.2*</td>
<td>1.2*</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>0.5</td>
<td>0.5</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>450.8*</td>
<td>448.7*</td>
<td>0</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Grantees</td>
<td>1.0</td>
<td>1.0</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>0.6</td>
<td>0.7</td>
<td>17</td>
<td>391.4</td>
<td>371.5</td>
<td>-5</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><blockquote>
<p>Received grant for two or more years</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td>1.0</td>
<td>1.0</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>0.7</td>
<td>0.7</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>433.7</td>
<td>429.9</td>
<td>-1</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>School enrollment size</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><blockquote>
<p>400 or fewer</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td>0.8</td>
<td>0.9</td>
<td>13</td>
<td>0.7</td>
<td>0.9</td>
<td>29</td>
<td>261.4</td>
<td>239.9</td>
<td>-8</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><blockquote>
<p>401–700</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td>1.1</td>
<td>1.2</td>
<td>9</td>
<td>0.5</td>
<td>0.6</td>
<td>20</td>
<td>428.0</td>
<td>412.9</td>
<td>-4</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><blockquote>
<p>More than 700</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td>1.3</td>
<td>1.3</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>0.3</td>
<td>0.6</td>
<td>100</td>
<td>728.8</td>
<td>717.6</td>
<td>-2</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>School level</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><blockquote>
<p>Elementary</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td>1.0</td>
<td>1.0</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>0.6</td>
<td>0.7</td>
<td>17</td>
<td>387.1</td>
<td>371.3</td>
<td>-4</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><blockquote>
<p>Middle/junior high</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td>1.2</td>
<td>1.3</td>
<td>8</td>
<td>0.4</td>
<td>0.5</td>
<td>25</td>
<td>385.9</td>
<td>373.0</td>
<td>-3</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><blockquote>
<p>High school/combined/other</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td>0.9</td>
<td>1.0</td>
<td>11</td>
<td>0.6</td>
<td>1.0</td>
<td>67</td>
<td>415.2</td>
<td>371.7</td>
<td>-10</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Urbanicity</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><blockquote>
<p>City</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td>1.0</td>
<td>1.0</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>0.4</td>
<td>0.6</td>
<td>50</td>
<td>478.2</td>
<td>474.1</td>
<td>-1</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><blockquote>
<p>Urban fringe</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td>1.0</td>
<td>1.0</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>0.6</td>
<td>0.5</td>
<td>-17</td>
<td>453.3</td>
<td>453.5</td>
<td>0</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><blockquote>
<p>Town</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td>1.4</td>
<td>1.4</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>0.5</td>
<td>0.6</td>
<td>20</td>
<td>336.0</td>
<td>314.8</td>
<td>-6</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><blockquote>
<p>Rural</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td>0.8</td>
<td>1.0</td>
<td>25</td>
<td>0.8</td>
<td>1.1</td>
<td>38</td>
<td>293.4</td>
<td>247.6</td>
<td>-16</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Free/reduced-price lunch eligibility</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><blockquote>
<p>Less than 50 percent</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td>1.0</td>
<td>1.0</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>0.6</td>
<td>0.8</td>
<td>33</td>
<td>412.9</td>
<td>399.2</td>
<td>-3</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><blockquote>
<p>50 percent or more</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td>1.0</td>
<td>1.0</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>0.5</td>
<td>0.7</td>
<td>40</td>
<td>383.9</td>
<td>361.8</td>
<td>-6</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Total expenditures per student</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><blockquote>
<p>$12.00 or less</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td>0.9</td>
<td>1.0</td>
<td>11</td>
<td>0.5</td>
<td>0.6</td>
<td>20</td>
<td>425.9</td>
<td>403.2</td>
<td>-5</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><blockquote>
<p>$12.01–$20.00</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td>1.1</td>
<td>1.2</td>
<td>9</td>
<td>0.5</td>
<td>0.8</td>
<td>60</td>
<td>414.2</td>
<td>380.9</td>
<td>-8</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><blockquote>
<p>More than $20.00</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td>1.0</td>
<td>1.0</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>0.7</td>
<td>0.9</td>
<td>29</td>
<td>335.6</td>
<td>324.7</td>
<td>-3</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Total FTE staff</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><blockquote>
<p>1.25 or less</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td>0.7</td>
<td>0.8</td>
<td>14</td>
<td>0.4</td>
<td>0.6</td>
<td>50</td>
<td>469.6</td>
<td>430.2</td>
<td>-8</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><blockquote>
<p>1.26–1.75</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td>1.0</td>
<td>1.0</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>1.1</td>
<td>1.2</td>
<td>9</td>
<td>275.0</td>
<td>272.6</td>
<td>-1</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><blockquote>
<p>More than 1.75</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td>1.9</td>
<td>1.8</td>
<td>-5</td>
<td>0.4</td>
<td>0.7</td>
<td>75</td>
<td>298.8</td>
<td>310.7</td>
<td>4</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>

FTE = full-time equivalent.

*Note:* The asterisks (\*) indicate that there is a statistically
significant difference (i.e., *p*-value ≤ .05) between grantee and
nongrantee school libraries.

^a^Part-time staff are treated as half time.

^b^Statistical significance was not calculated for percentage change.

*Source:* Second evaluation, school library media center survey
questions 1 and 9.

**Exhibit A-34**

**Percentage of Schools Offering Professional Development Related to
School Libraries, by Topic Area\
and School Characteristics, 2005--06 School Year**

<table>
<colgroup>
<col style="width: 21%" />
<col style="width: 10%" />
<col style="width: 9%" />
<col style="width: 9%" />
<col style="width: 8%" />
<col style="width: 8%" />
<col style="width: 9%" />
<col style="width: 8%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
</colgroup>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td>School Characteristic</td>
<td>Selecting Materials That Align With Curriculum</td>
<td>Integrating Technology Into the Curriculum</td>
<td>Methods of Collaboration</td>
<td>Teaching Children to Read</td>
<td>Motivating Students to Read</td>
<td>Providing Instruction in Information Skills</td>
<td>Converting to Electronic Catalog</td>
<td>Learning to Use Online Resources</td>
<td>Other</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Percentage of all schools</td>
<td>71</td>
<td>89</td>
<td>77</td>
<td>47</td>
<td>88</td>
<td>81</td>
<td>42</td>
<td>87</td>
<td>15</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Nongrantees</td>
<td>71</td>
<td>89</td>
<td>76</td>
<td>47</td>
<td>88</td>
<td>81</td>
<td>42</td>
<td>87</td>
<td>15</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Grantees</td>
<td>72</td>
<td>87</td>
<td>83*</td>
<td>60*</td>
<td>88</td>
<td>77</td>
<td>45</td>
<td>89</td>
<td>18</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><blockquote>
<p>Received grant for two or more years</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td>72</td>
<td>87</td>
<td>63</td>
<td>66</td>
<td>87</td>
<td>67</td>
<td>68</td>
<td>87</td>
<td>4</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>School enrollment size</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><blockquote>
<p>400 or fewer</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td>67</td>
<td>84</td>
<td>81</td>
<td>63</td>
<td>87</td>
<td>74</td>
<td>46</td>
<td>88</td>
<td>10</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><blockquote>
<p>401–700</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td>79</td>
<td>90</td>
<td>82</td>
<td>58</td>
<td>93</td>
<td>80</td>
<td>45</td>
<td>93</td>
<td>25</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><blockquote>
<p>More than 700</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td>67</td>
<td>87</td>
<td>94</td>
<td>54</td>
<td>81</td>
<td>80</td>
<td>39</td>
<td>83</td>
<td>25</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>School level</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><blockquote>
<p>Elementary</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td>72</td>
<td>86</td>
<td>84</td>
<td>63</td>
<td>89</td>
<td>76</td>
<td>46</td>
<td>88</td>
<td>19</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><blockquote>
<p>Middle/junior high</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td>75</td>
<td>96</td>
<td>80</td>
<td>52</td>
<td>94</td>
<td>80</td>
<td>43</td>
<td>97</td>
<td>16</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><blockquote>
<p>High school/combined/other</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td>67</td>
<td>84</td>
<td>82</td>
<td>51</td>
<td>83</td>
<td>81</td>
<td>41</td>
<td>88</td>
<td>12</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Urbanicity</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><blockquote>
<p>City</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td>65</td>
<td>79</td>
<td>83</td>
<td>63</td>
<td>85</td>
<td>74</td>
<td>49</td>
<td>94</td>
<td>17</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><blockquote>
<p>Urban fringe</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td>78</td>
<td>96</td>
<td>77</td>
<td>61</td>
<td>93</td>
<td>70</td>
<td>38</td>
<td>84</td>
<td>28</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><blockquote>
<p>Town</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td>75</td>
<td>91</td>
<td>88</td>
<td>51</td>
<td>86</td>
<td>79</td>
<td>44</td>
<td>89</td>
<td>16</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><blockquote>
<p>Rural</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td>74</td>
<td>89</td>
<td>84</td>
<td>60</td>
<td>90</td>
<td>84</td>
<td>44</td>
<td>87</td>
<td>14</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Free/reduced-price lunch eligibility</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><blockquote>
<p>Less than 50 percent</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td>70</td>
<td>90</td>
<td>90</td>
<td>58</td>
<td>89</td>
<td>79</td>
<td>35</td>
<td>83</td>
<td>15</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><blockquote>
<p>50 percent or more</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td>72</td>
<td>86</td>
<td>81</td>
<td>60</td>
<td>88</td>
<td>77</td>
<td>48</td>
<td>91</td>
<td>18</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Total expenditures per student</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><blockquote>
<p>$12.00 or less</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td>72</td>
<td>88</td>
<td>83</td>
<td>65</td>
<td>89</td>
<td>74</td>
<td>46</td>
<td>87</td>
<td>12</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><blockquote>
<p>$12.01–$20.00</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td>75</td>
<td>90</td>
<td>87</td>
<td>59</td>
<td>88</td>
<td>89</td>
<td>47</td>
<td>94</td>
<td>25</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><blockquote>
<p>More than $20.00</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td>73</td>
<td>84</td>
<td>81</td>
<td>54</td>
<td>86</td>
<td>78</td>
<td>43</td>
<td>90</td>
<td>22</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Total FTE staff</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><blockquote>
<p>1.25 or less</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td>71</td>
<td>84</td>
<td>80</td>
<td>59</td>
<td>90</td>
<td>74</td>
<td>49</td>
<td>90</td>
<td>14</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><blockquote>
<p>1.26–1.75</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td>76</td>
<td>95</td>
<td>88</td>
<td>70</td>
<td>89</td>
<td>81</td>
<td>34</td>
<td>87</td>
<td>27</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><blockquote>
<p>More than 1.75</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td>69</td>
<td>87</td>
<td>85</td>
<td>48</td>
<td>82</td>
<td>82</td>
<td>46</td>
<td>89</td>
<td>15</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>

FTE = full-time equivalent.

*Note:* The asterisks (\*) indicate that there is a statistically
significant difference (i.e., *p*-value ≤ .05) between grantee and
nongrantee school libraries.

*Source:* Second evaluation, school library media center survey question
19.

**Exhibit A-35**

**Percentage of Schools Offering Professional Development Related to
School Libraries,\
by Grantee Status, 2004--05 and 2005--06 School Years**

  ----------------------------------------------- ----------- -----------
  Grantee Status and Topic Area                   School Year 

                                                  2004--05    2005--06

                                                              

  **Grantees**                                                

  Selecting books that align with curriculum      45          72

  Integrating technology into curriculum          65          87

  Exploring methods of collaboration              56          83\*

  Teaching children to read                       42          60\*

  Motivating students to read                     70          88

  Providing instruction in information skills     61          77

  Converting to electronic catalog                31          45

  Learning to use online resources                66          89

                                                              

  **Nongrantees**                                             

  Selecting books that align with curriculum      68\*        71

  Integrating technology into curriculum          84\*        89

  Exploring methods of collaboration              74\*        76

  Teaching children to read                       45          47

  Motivating students to read                     82\*        88

  Providing instruction in information skills     77\*        81

  Converting to electronic catalog                40\*        42

  Learning to use online resources                83\*        87
  ----------------------------------------------- ----------- -----------

*Note:* The asterisks (\*) indicate that there is a statistically
significant difference (i.e., *p*-value ≤ .05) between grantee and
nongrantee school libraries.

*Source:* Second evaluation, school library media center survey question
19.

**Exhibit A-36**

**Percentage of School Libraries Reporting That Library Staff Worked
With Classroom Teachers on\
Selected Curriculum Areas at Various Frequency Rates, by Grantee Status,
2005--06 School Year**

  ------------------ --------- --------- ----------- ---------- --------- ------------
  Grantee Status     Weekly    Monthly   Quarterly   Annually   Never     Not
                                                                          Applicable

                                                                          

  **Grantees**                                                            

  Reading/language   60        19        8           5          4         4
  arts                                                                    

  English            37        22        13\*        8          11        10

  Mathematics        11        15        22\*        16         29        7

  Science            23\*      31        21          12         9         5

  Social studies     29        31        19          9          7         4

                                                                          

  **Nongrantees**                                                         

  Reading/language   61        16        7           4          6         7
  arts                                                                    

  English            36        26        9           7          9         13

  Mathematics        11        16        16          14         30        13\*

  Science            17        27        21          15         12        9\*

  Social studies     25        27        19          10         9         9\*
  ------------------ --------- --------- ----------- ---------- --------- ------------

*Note:* The asterisks (\*) indicate that there is a statistically
significant difference (i.e., *p*-value ≤ .05) between grantee and
nongrantee school libraries. Percentages may not add to 100 because of
rounding.

*Source:* Second evaluation, school library media center survey question
11.

**Exhibit A-37**

**Percentage of School Libraries Reporting That Library Staff Worked
Weekly With Classroom\
Teachers on Selected Curriculum Areas, by School Characteristics,
2005--06 School Year**

+---------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| School              | Re     | E      | Mathe  | S      | Social |
| Characteristic      | ading/ | nglish | matics | cience | S      |
|                     | La     |        |        |        | tudies |
|                     | nguage |        |        |        |        |
|                     | Arts   |        |        |        |        |
+---------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
|                     |        |        |        |        |        |
+---------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| Percentage of all   | 61     | 36     | 11     | 17     | 25     |
| schools             |        |        |        |        |        |
+---------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
|                     |        |        |        |        |        |
+---------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| Nongrantees         | 61     | 36     | 11     | 17     | 25     |
+---------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| Grantees            | 60     | 37     | 11     | 23\*   | 29     |
+---------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| > Received grant    | 55     | 27     | 13     | 13     | 22     |
| > for two or more   |        |        |        |        |        |
| > years             |        |        |        |        |        |
+---------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
|                     |        |        |        |        |        |
+---------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| School enrollment   |        |        |        |        |        |
| size                |        |        |        |        |        |
+---------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| > 400 or fewer      | 57     | 33     | 10     | 17     | 25     |
+---------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| > 401--700          | 58     | 34     | 11     | 23     | 26     |
+---------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| > More than 700     | 75     | 62     | 17     | 41     | 56     |
+---------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
|                     |        |        |        |        |        |
+---------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| School level        |        |        |        |        |        |
+---------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| > Elementary        | 59     | 30     | 13     | 24     | 30     |
+---------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| > Middle/junior     | 69     | 50     | 5      | 23     | 25     |
| > high              |        |        |        |        |        |
+---------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| > High              | 56     | 55     | 10     | 16     | 30     |
| > sc                |        |        |        |        |        |
| hool/combined/other |        |        |        |        |        |
+---------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
|                     |        |        |        |        |        |
+---------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| Urbanicity          |        |        |        |        |        |
+---------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| > City              | 56     | 38     | 12     | 21     | 36     |
+---------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| > Urban fringe      | 56     | 27     | 8      | 20     | 23     |
+---------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| > Town              | 68     | 37     | 13     | 28     | 28     |
+---------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| > Rural             | 61     | 40     | 12     | 24     | 26     |
+---------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
|                     |        |        |        |        |        |
+---------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| Free/reduced-price  |        |        |        |        |        |
| lunch eligibility   |        |        |        |        |        |
+---------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| > Less than         | 66     | 49     | 12     | 22     | 31     |
| > 50 percent        |        |        |        |        |        |
+---------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| > 50 percent or     | 57     | 33     | 11     | 23     | 29     |
| > more              |        |        |        |        |        |
+---------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
|                     |        |        |        |        |        |
+---------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| Total expenditures  |        |        |        |        |        |
| per student         |        |        |        |        |        |
+---------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| > \$12.00 or less   | 60     | 36     | 11     | 18     | 26     |
+---------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| > \$12.01--\$20.00  | 65     | 38     | 17     | 39     | 35     |
+---------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| > More than \$20.00 | 59     | 42     | 10     | 23     | 33     |
+---------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
|                     |        |        |        |        |        |
+---------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| Total FTE staff     |        |        |        |        |        |
+---------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| > 1.25 or less      | 57     | 34     | 11     | 21     | 30     |
+---------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| > 1.26--1.75        | 63     | 42     | 13     | 27     | 29     |
+---------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| > More than 1.75    | 63     | 40     | 11     | 24     | 28     |
+---------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+

FTE = full-time equivalent.

*Note:* The asterisk (\*) indicates that there is a statistically
significant difference (i.e., *p*-value ≤ .05) between grantee and
nongrantee school libraries.

*Source:* Second evaluation, school library media center survey question
11.

**Exhibit A-38**

**Percentage of School Libraries Reporting That Library Staff Provided
Selected Services to Classroom Teachers in the Area of Reading or
English at Various Frequency Rates,\
by Grantee Status, 2005--06 School Year**

  ----------------- --------- --------- ----------- ---------- --------- ------------
  Grantee Status    Weekly    Monthly   Quarterly   Annually   Never     Not
                                                                         Applicable

                                                                         

  **Grantees**                                                           

  Selection of      29        21        16          18         11        5
  resources                                                              

  Curriculum        13        18\*      11          13         31        14
  development                                                            

  Collaborative     13        13        16          11         31        16
  teaching                                                               

  Collaborative     7         8         12\*        11         43        19
  evaluation                                                             

                                                                         

  **Nongrantees**                                                        

  Selection of      27        18        17          21         10        7
  resources                                                              

  Curricular        9         13        12          16         33        16
  development                                                            

  Collaborative     10        12        14          9          38\*      18
  teaching                                                               

  Collaborative     4         10        8           12         46        19
  evaluation                                                             
  ----------------- --------- --------- ----------- ---------- --------- ------------

*Note:* The asterisks (\*) indicate that there is a statistically
significant difference (i.e., *p*-value ≤ .05) between grantee and
nongrantee school libraries. Percentages may not add to 100 because of
rounding.

*Source:* Second evaluation, school library media center survey question
12.

**Exhibit A-39**

**Percentage of School Libraries Reporting That Library Staff Provided
Selected Services to Classroom Teachers in the Area of Reading or
English, by School Characteristics, 2005--06 School Year**

+----------------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| School               | Selecting | C         | Coll      | Coll      |
| Characteristic       | Resources | urriculum | aborative | aborative |
|                      |           | De        | Teaching  | E         |
|                      |           | velopment |           | valuation |
+----------------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
|                      |           |           |           |           |
+----------------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| Percentage of all    | 83        | 51        | 44        | 35        |
| schools              |           |           |           |           |
+----------------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
|                      |           |           |           |           |
+----------------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| Nongrantees          | 83        | 51        | 44        | 34        |
+----------------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| Grantees             | 84        | 55        | 53\*      | 38        |
+----------------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| > Received grant for | 70        | 41        | 42        | 34        |
| > two or more years  |           |           |           |           |
+----------------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
|                      |           |           |           |           |
+----------------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| School enrollment    |           |           |           |           |
| size                 |           |           |           |           |
+----------------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| > 400 or fewer       | 83        | 57        | 49        | 33        |
+----------------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| > 401--700           | 84        | 51        | 52        | 42        |
+----------------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| > More than 700      | 88        | 57        | 72        | 44        |
+----------------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
|                      |           |           |           |           |
+----------------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| School level         |           |           |           |           |
+----------------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| > Elementary         | 80        | 50        | 50        | 34        |
+----------------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| > Middle/junior high | 98        | 70        | 63        | 51        |
+----------------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| > High               | 89        | 64        | 62        | 46        |
| > s                  |           |           |           |           |
| chool/combined/other |           |           |           |           |
+----------------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
|                      |           |           |           |           |
+----------------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| Urbanicity           |           |           |           |           |
+----------------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| > City               | 80        | 39        | 53        | 37        |
+----------------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| > Urban fringe       | 77        | 42        | 40        | 22        |
+----------------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| > Town               | 96        | 74        | 63        | 45        |
+----------------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| > Rural              | 86        | 69        | 56        | 44        |
+----------------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
|                      |           |           |           |           |
+----------------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| Free/reduced-price   |           |           |           |           |
| lunch eligibility    |           |           |           |           |
+----------------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| > Less than          | 92        | 62        | 60        | 46        |
| > 50 percent         |           |           |           |           |
+----------------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| > 50 percent or more | 81        | 52        | 51        | 35        |
+----------------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
|                      |           |           |           |           |
+----------------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| Total expenditures   |           |           |           |           |
| per student          |           |           |           |           |
+----------------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| > \$12.00 or less    | 80        | 48        | 52        | 31        |
+----------------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| > \$12.01--\$20.00   | 87        | 65        | 53        | 46        |
+----------------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| > More than \$20.00  | 89        | 60        | 54        | 42        |
+----------------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
|                      |           |           |           |           |
+----------------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| Total FTE staff      |           |           |           |           |
+----------------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| > 1.25 or less       | 77        | 49        | 47        | 34        |
+----------------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| > 1.26--1.75         | 94        | 62        | 58        | 43        |
+----------------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| > More than 1.75     | 93        | 63        | 66        | 43        |
+----------------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+

FTE = full-time equivalent.

*Note:* The asterisks (\*) indicates that there is a statistically
significant difference (i.e., *p*-value ≤ .05) between grantee and
nongrantee school libraries.

*Source:* Second evaluation, school library media center survey question
12.

**Exhibit A-40**

**Percentage of School Libraries Providing Instruction in Information
Skills Through Various Approaches,\
by School Characteristics, 2005--06 School Year**

+----------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| School         | Loca |      |      |      | Who  |      |      |
| Characteristic | tion |      |      |      | Prov |      |      |
|                | of   |      |      |      | ided |      |      |
|                | P    |      |      |      | Ins  |      |      |
|                | rovi |      |      |      | truc |      |      |
|                | ding |      |      |      | tion |      |      |
|                | Ins  |      |      |      |      |      |      |
|                | truc |      |      |      |      |      |      |
|                | tion |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+----------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
|                | Both | Sepa | In   | Nei  | Lib  | C    | O    |
|                | Sepa | rate | tegr | ther | rary | lass | ther |
|                | rate | Co   | ated |      | M    | room |      |
|                | and  | urse | Into |      | edia | Teac |      |
|                | In   | Only | Cu   |      | Sp   | hers |      |
|                | tegr |      | rric |      | ecia |      |      |
|                | ated |      | ulum |      | list |      |      |
|                | Into |      | Only |      |      |      |      |
|                | Cu   |      |      |      |      |      |      |
|                | rric |      |      |      |      |      |      |
|                | ulum |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+----------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
|                |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+----------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Percentage of  | 34   | 7    | 50   | 9    | 78   | 75   | 21   |
| all schools    |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+----------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
|                |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+----------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Nongrantees    | 34   | 7    | 50   | 9    | 78   | 75   | 21   |
+----------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Grantees       | 42\* | 6    | 47   | 5    | 78   | 78   | 24   |
+----------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| > Received     | 28   | 9    | 55   | 8    | 78   | 67   | 20   |
| > grant for    |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
| > two or more  |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
| > years        |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+----------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
|                |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+----------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| School         |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
| enrollment     |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
| size           |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+----------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| > 400 or fewer | 48   | 8    | 39   | 5    | 81   | 81   | 21   |
+----------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| > 401--700     | 40   | 5    | 49   | 6    | 76   | 74   | 29   |
+----------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| > More than    | 28   | 3    | 67   | 3    | 71   | 80   | 21   |
| > 700          |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+----------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
|                |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+----------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| School level   |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+----------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| > Elementary   | 49   | 7    | 38   | 6    | 76   | 75   | 27   |
+----------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| >              | 28   | 3    | 69   |      | 84   | 90   | 15   |
|  Middle/junior |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
| > high         |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+----------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| > High         | 26   | 3    | 66   | 5    | 82   | 85   | 21   |
| > school/      |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
| combined/other |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+----------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
|                |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+----------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Urbanicity     |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+----------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| > City         | 46   | 7    | 42   | 6    | 71   | 74   | 29   |
+----------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| > Urban fringe | 50   | 11   | 34   | 5    | 72   | 69   | 28   |
+----------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| > Town         | 35   | 2    | 58   | 6    | 91   | 89   | 20   |
+----------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| > Rural        | 39   | 4    | 53   | 4    | 82   | 83   | 19   |
+----------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
|                |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+----------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Free           |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
| /reduced-price |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
| lunch          |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
| eligibility    |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+----------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| > Less than    | 48   | 3    | 49   | 0    | 86   | 83   | 22   |
| > 50 percent   |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+----------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| > 50 percent   | 40   | 7    | 46   | 7    | 75   | 77   | 25   |
| > or more      |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+----------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
|                |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+----------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Total          |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
| expenditures   |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
| per student    |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+----------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| > \$12.00 or   | 43   | 6    | 49   | 2    | 82   | 76   | 18   |
| > less         |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+----------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| > \$           | 43   | 2    | 49   | 6    | 80   | 86   | 30   |
| 12.01--\$20.00 |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+----------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| > More than    | 45   | 7    | 45   | 3    | 74   | 83   | 30   |
| > \$20.00      |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+----------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
|                |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+----------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Total FTE      |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
| staff          |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+----------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| > 1.25 or less | 43   | 7    | 44   | 6    | 75   | 75   | 23   |
+----------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| > 1.26--1.75   | 54   | 3    | 41   | 2    | 76   | 82   | 34   |
+----------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| > More than    | 28   | 5    | 61   | 6    | 86   | 83   | 17   |
| > 1.75         |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+----------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+

FTE = full-time equivalent.

*Note:* The asterisks (\*) indicates that there is a statistically
significant difference (i.e., *p*-value ≤ .05) between grantee and
nongrantee school libraries. Percentages may not add to 100 because of
rounding.

*Source:* Second evaluation, school library media center survey
questions 13 and 14.

APPENDIX B

METHODOLOGY

**Methodology**

Sample Design and Weighting

This study focused on districts (or consortia of districts) and schools
receiving grants in 2005. Although school districts were the official
recipients of the grants, much of the data sought for this evaluation
were likely to be available only at the school level. The study
therefore collected district information from the district performance
reports (which are required as a condition of receiving the grant) and
school information through a separate school survey. With roughly 450
schools participating in the grants for 2005, and up to 53 participating
schools per district, sampling was undertaken as a way of reducing
burden and costs. Further, when a large number of schools in a district
are participating, those schools' programs are not truly independent of
one another but, rather, share many commonalities (e.g., there may be a
districtwide effort to revise the curriculum or the libraries may share
a common strategy in determining which types of books are needed). Such
commonalities lessen the need to survey all schools.

A subsample of 400 grantee schools was selected from the targeted
schools in districts that received grants in 2005--06. The subsampling
of the grantee schools was designed to ensure that at least one school
was selected from each of the 85 districts or consortia of districts
that were awarded grants in 2005--06. Schools in the 11 districts that
received grants for 2005--06 and prior years were included in the frame
of grantee schools as a way of examining what changes were associated
with prolonged participation in the library program. However, schools in
districts that received grants in prior years but not for 2005--06 were
not included either in the grantee or in the comparison school frame
because they might have systematic differences from both groups.

Similarly, a sample of 400 comparison schools was selected by drawing an
equal number of comparison schools from each of the specified matching
cells, based on the sampling strata. The sample of comparison schools
included both (a) districts that applied for but were denied grants and
(b) districts that were eligible but did not apply for grants. Schools
in districts that had received grants in prior years were excluded from
the comparison school frame. In the 2005 evaluation report, about 25
percent of the comparison schools belonged to the first group. They thus
were sufficiently common that stratification to control the number of
such districts was unnecessary, and this distinction was not made for
the current study. Nongrantee schools that did not belong to any of the
matching cells (e.g., schools in districts in which fewer than 20
percent of the students are from families with incomes below poverty
levels) were excluded from the comparison school frame. The most current
(2003--04) National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) Common Core
of Data (CCD) Local Education Agency Universe File (augmented with
information from other available data sources such as the district-level
Title I data file maintained by NCES) was used to create the frame. The
district-level characteristics that were used in the matching process
included region, district poverty status, school district type,
urbanicity and district enrollment size. The school-level
characteristics that were used in the matching process included
instructional level, school type, enrollment size, type of locale,
percentage of students belonging to racial or ethnic minorities, and
percentage of students receiving free or reduced-priced lunches. Special
attention was given to identifying similar comparison schools for those
few grantee schools with unusual characteristics (charter school
districts or single-school districts).

The comparison schools intentionally included a mixture of districts
that applied for grants but were rejected and districts that did not
apply. One could argue that the schools that applied but were rejected
are most comparable to the grantee sites, with their decision to apply
possibly reflecting a reform orientation (or other characteristic) that
may itself be important in influencing school and student outcomes (or,
for that matter, in how the grant is implemented). This reasoning could
be an argument for sampling only from districts that applied for the
grant. However, extrapolating the potential influence of the program is
improved if a broader set of districts or schools is used for the
sample. For example, the importance of such a reform orientation (or
other characteristic) can only be measured by also examining districts
or schools that did not apply for a grant.

With this design, the comparison of the grantee schools with similar
comparison schools can be used as one way of measuring the outcomes of
the program. It may be that the outcomes of the program will vary
depending both on how it is implemented at the sites and on the
characteristics of the schools where it is implemented. The sample
design should be helpful in examining such differences by assuring a
broad range of school and district characteristics. Additionally,
because the questionnaire asked for some retrospective data to allow the
measurement of change over time, the comparison schools can be used to
measure whether the changes might be attributed to factors other than
the library program (such as a general movement toward school reform).

It should be noted that school library services are organized in a
variety of ways. Except in a few cases in this report where district
statistics are considered, the unit of analysis for this study is
considered to be school libraries rather than schools. That is, the
focus of this study is on what changes occurred in school libraries,
looking at such topics as the level of usage of school libraries, the
resources held by these school libraries, the services provided by
libraries, and their finances; all of these data are library-based
statistics rather than school statistics. Thus, for this study, we
excluded from the analysis schools without libraries, including a small
number of schools with classroom collections only. A greater number of
schools have school libraries but no librarians; these were not excluded
from the analysis, and some other school official (e.g., the principal)
provided data on the library. A few schools shared a library with
another school and were able only to provide statistics on the combined
use of the library. Because the library rather than the school was being
treated as the unit of analysis, the data in such cases were weighted to
reflect the number of libraries rather than the number of schools.

The data have been weighted for nonresponse and the probability of
selection, so the grantee schools represent the full total of 407
grantee school libraries (after removing ineligible schools and
adjusting for situations where two schools shared a single library), and
the nongrantee schools represent the full total of 12,014 eligible
nongrantee school libraries.

Ideally, an evaluation study would examine the school libraries over
multiple years after the receipt of the grant rather than only the year
of the grant, for several reasons.

-   Some changes resulting from the grants may have not yet been fully
    realized in the 2005--06 school year because a change had been in
    effect for only part of the year (for this reason, some items in the
    questionnaire focused on spring 2006).

-   Changes in students may lag behind the changes made in the
    libraries; for example, it may take time before changes in a
    library's holdings are associated with improvements in students'
    reading literacy.

-   Some types of changes might be more likely to persist than others.
    For example, a library's holdings would continue to reflect the
    extra purchases that were funded by the grant, but over time, the
    holdings may again become more outdated if the school lacks
    sufficient funds for continued updates. Other differences, and
    especially those that required hiring additional personnel, might
    show changes in later years; for example, to the degree that the
    grant funds were used to fund extending the hours in which a school
    library is open, schools may lack the funding to continue such
    extended hours after the grant has expired. Changes that are brought
    about through professional development activities might have the
    best chances of persisting, though the provision of library services
    and increased collaboration may depend not only on people's skills
    but also on resources that are available (e.g., to support the
    services or to provide time in which the activities can be
    conducted).

This study thus is intended to provide a preliminary measure of how the
grants were implemented and what changes were associated with receipt of
the grants.

Although most of the data in this report are from school surveys that
were administered to both grantees and nongrantees, some data also were
taken from the performance reports that were submitted to the U.S.
Department of Education at the completion of the grant period by the
participating districts. The form used for the performance reports was
designed by the Department, with input from Westat. These data exist
only for the districts receiving grantees and, thus, cannot be compared
with other districts. Still, they provide a different perspective on the
administration of the grants (i.e., by either districts or consortia of
districts) and are particularly helpful for describing the district's
role in implementing the grants, for example, describing how schools
were selected to participate in the grants or how the funds were
distributed to schools. Districts were required to complete the
performance reports as a condition of receiving the grants; however,
some districts received extensions to allow sufficient time to implement
the programs, and some of these extended beyond the evaluation time
frame. At the time of the preparation of this report, 75 of the 85
grantees for 2005--06 had sent performance reports. District performance
reports for 2004--05 also were included in the evaluation; 70 of the 92
grantees for 2004--05 had submitted reports. Some types of districts
were more likely to submit the reports than others, though the
differences were usually small. The most notable differences were that
districts were more likely to respond if their grants were \$100,000 or
less (80 percent versus 63 percent to 65 percent among the other grant
size categories), and if they were either small or large (79 percent and
72 percent, respectively, versus 46 percent among those with enrollment
between 500 and 1,999). The data were weighted to adjust for
nonresponse.

Grantees for 2003 through 2005 were considered for becoming case study
sites. The most important criterion in selecting sites was whether there
was some indication that promising practices were occurring in the
district. The strategies used to obtain this information were review of
all LSL project abstracts, review of LSL conference call notes from the
program administrator with respect to FY 2005 projects, review of the
highlights document on the LSL Web site with respect to FY 2004
projects, and solicitation of recommendations from school library
experts. Other criteria were that the districts and schools had met
adequate yearly progress (AYP),[^21] that the activities conducted as a
part of the LSL grant were continuing and that most of the key staff
were still working in the district. In addition, sites were selected to
reflect a diversity in terms of race/ethnicity, level of poverty, locale
and geographic region of the country.

Questionnaire Development

To facilitate measures of change that might be associated with receipt
of the grants, many of the survey questions asked for data for both the
2004--05 and the 2005--06 school years, with the first year representing
the condition of the school libraries before the grant and the second
year representing the condition of the school libraries during the year
of the grant. The questionnaire was designed to apply to both grantees
and nongrantees to receive comparable data from both types of school
libraries. That is, the questions were phrased in a general manner
(e.g., asking about what services were offered or the size of the
collections) without specifically referring to the grants.

A pretest of the School Library Media Center Survey was conducted
between February 24, 2006, and April 21, 2006. Originally, nine schools
agreed to participate in the pretest, but one dropped out because of a
death in the family of the respondent. The results from the eight
remaining schools were quite consistent, so their responses were used
without making a last minute substitution for the school that dropped
out. The pretest schools were selected not only to include both grantees
and nongrantees but also to collectively represent a variety of school
characteristics (i.e., based on geographic region, enrollment size,
urbanicity and grade level). The responses to the pretest were used to
revise the questionnaire, rephrasing the directions to several questions
to emphasize that estimates were acceptable when records with exact
amounts were not available. The questionnaire was also reviewed by the
U.S. Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and revised in response to
comments from that review. OMB approval to conduct the survey was
received on September 19, 2006.

For the case studies, interview protocols were developed for the program
administrator at the district level as well as for the principal, school
librarian and classroom teacher. In addition, an observation form for
LSL-related activities was prepared. The protocols were reviewed by the
U.S. Department of Education and OMB.

Data Collection and Processing

Surveys

Data collection began with a mailout of the survey questionnaire to
school libraries in October 2006. All data collection activities were
ended on March 20, 2007. All data collection for the survey was
conducted by REDA International, Inc., as a subcontractor to Westat.
Telephone follow-up was used to prompt school libraries that had not yet
responded and to resolve questions concerning data quality that appeared
during reviews of the data.

Exhibit B-1 presents the response rates to the survey. Of the 400
grantee schools that were sampled, 49 were either closed or ineligible
because of not having school libraries, leaving 360 school libraries. Of
these, 315 responded to the survey for a response rate of 88 percent. Of
the 406 nongrantee schools that were sampled, 47 were closed or
ineligible, leaving a total of 357 school libraries. Of these, 296
responded to the survey, for a response rate of 83 percent. The combined
response rate across both grantee school libraries and nongrantee school
libraries was 85 percent, or 611 of 717 school libraries.

Exhibit B-1\
Number of Schools Sampled and Number of Responses

  ---------------- ----------- ---------- ------------ ---------- ----------- ----------
  School           Original\   Closed\    Ineligible   Total      Number of   Response
  Characteristic   Sample      Schools                 Eligible   Responses   Rate (%)

  Total            806         13         83           717        611         85

  Grantees         400         8          41           360        315         88

  Nongrantees      406         5          42           357        296         83
  ---------------- ----------- ---------- ------------ ---------- ----------- ----------

The completed questionnaires were reviewed for completeness and internal
consistency. Questionnaires that had fewer than 100 completed data items
were considered as nonresponses and discarded. Depending on the
questionnaire item and the type of problem that was found, problematic
responses were verified by checking the original questionnaire or
calling the respondent or, in a few cases, by setting extreme outliers
to have missing values.

Case Studies

Case study site visitor training took place on September 21, 2006. Seven
site visits were conducted by two-person teams, and two site visits were
conducted by one senior project staff member. The site visits were
conducted between November 2006 and January 2007; each involved a visit
to one or two schools.

Derived Variables

Several analytic variables were created by combining data from multiple
questionnaire items, either to create measures that would be more
comparable across all schools or to summarize the data more compactly
and better represent overall patterns in the responses. Following are
the specific variables that were created for this reason and the way in
which they were derived.

**Standardization based on school enrollment.** Several measures were
created as ratios with respect to the school enrollment to create
statistics that would be more comparable across schools of different
sizes.

-   Usage in typical week per student enrolled (e.g., Q2apct = Q2a/Q1)

-   Materials checked out per student enrolled (e.g., Q3aperstu =
    Q3a/Q1)

-   Number of pupils per librarian (e.g., if paidstaff06fte \> 0, then
    mps2006 = q1/paidstaff06fte; see below for derivation of
    paidstaff04fte)

**Other summary variables.** Following are additional variables that
were created to summarize the data contained in multiple variables:

-   Nonschool hours of access\
    (e.g., nonschl06 = sum(q6a_1\*q6a_2,q6b_1\*q6b_2,q6c,q6d)

-   Total full-time staff (e.g., ftstaff06 = q9a_1+q9b_1+q9c_1)

-   Total part-time staff (e.g., ptstaff06 = q9a_2+q9b_2+q9c_2)

-   Total paid staff using full-time equivalents\
    (e.g., paidstaff06fte = q9a_1+q9b_1+q9c_1+(q9a_2+q9b_2+q9c_2)/2)

-   Mean paid staff per student\
    (e.g., if paidstaff06fte \> 0 then mps2006 = q1/paidstaff06fte)

-   Total expenditures for materials other than those reported in
    question 32\
    (q32oth = q33_1-q32a_3-q32b_3-q32c_3-q32d_3-q32e_3

-   Expenditures as a percentage of total expenditures for materials\
    (e.g., q32a_3pct = q32a_3/q33\_)

-   Electronic services networked to locations outside the library
    (e.g., if q27a_3 = 1 or q27a_4 = 1 then q27a_34 = 1; else if q27a_3
    ge 0 and q27a_4 ge 0 then q27a_34 = 2;)

-   Number of programs or services that were added or expanded in
    2005--06 (for each library, the count of the number of items from
    q15a through q15n that are equal to either 1 or 2)

Analytic Techniques

Some of the survey data suggest that the grantees may have been
relatively disadvantaged when compared with the larger pool of eligible
schools. It is possible that even if the grants had a positive
influence, the grants may have helped only to compensate for these
earlier disadvantages, and the grantees may not necessarily compare
favorably with the nongrantees even after receiving the grants. For this
reason, when possible, this analysis focuses especially on changes from
2004--05 to 2005--06 rather than on straight comparisons based on
2005--06 alone. This approach provides a way of adjusting for possible
differences in starting points and, thus, provides a more accurate
indication of how the schools and libraries changed. When statistics for
2004--05 are not available, however, then comparisons are limited to a
single year, and the statistics may tend to understate the changes that
resulted from receiving the grants.

Most of the statistics in this report are percentages or means, along
with a few statistics that are based on regression analysis. Regression
analysis is most useful when one wishes to simultaneously allow for the
influence of multiple variables; for example, student test scores have
been shown to be related to many factors, and an analysis of the
association of the grants with test scores would especially require a
multivariate approach such as regression analysis. Conceivably, if one
has a well-developed statistical model, multivariate regression analysis
could be used to adjust for the differences between grantees and
nongrantees, which would lessen the need for having multiple years of
data. For example, if only data for 2005--06 are available, and if
grantees and nongrantees appear to have similar results, then regression
analysis might be used to test whether the grantees had better results
than otherwise might be expected. Regression analysis can also be
helpful when one desires to make a specific prediction (e.g., that an
increase in expenditures of *x* amount will result in a change of *y*
percent) rather than determine only whether two variables are
correlated.

Regardless of the statistical approach being used, all statements of
comparison in this report have been checked for statistical significance
to help assure that the differences are not likely to be the result of
chance variations in the statistical sample. The statistics have been
rounded, generally to the closest integer. An estimate of 0 percent may
appear either if no respondents gave the indicated answer or if the
percentage of such respondents was less than 0.5 percent.

The appendix tables often include a line for "total" that includes both
grantees and nongrantees. However, the weighted number of nongrantees
was much larger than the number of grantees (16,076 versus 628), so the
estimates in those lines are largely identical to those for nongrantees.

Variance Estimation

Statistical significance is used to measure the probability that an
observed relationship could have occurred by chance because the use of
statistical sampling creates some possibility that the relationships
observed in the sample may be attributed to peculiarities in the sample
that might not appear if the full universe of public schools were
included in the survey. The fact that a relationship is found to be
statistically significant does not necessarily mean that the
relationship is important; the larger the size of the sample, the less
likely the survey is to differ from a census of all schools, regardless
of the importance of the relationship that is observed. For this reason,
this report is generally limited to differences of at least 10
percentage points as a way of limiting the discussion to those
differences that are most important (in terms of the size of the
differences found). Similarly, the failure to find a statistically
significant relationship does not necessarily mean that two variables
are not related in some important way. It means that there is at least a
0.05 probability that the result could have occurred by chance, not that
it did occur by chance. Of course, it is also possible that other ways
of looking at the variables (e.g., by also incorporating different
variables into the analysis) might have produced statistically
significant results.

The standard error is a measure of the variability of estimates because
of sampling. It indicates the variability of a sample estimate that
would be obtained from all possible samples of a given design and size.
Standard errors are used as a measure of the precision expected from a
particular sample. If all possible samples were surveyed under similar
conditions, then intervals of 1.96 standard errors below to 1.96
standard errors above a particular statistic would include the true
population parameter being estimated in about 95 percent of the samples.
This parameter is a 95 percent confidence interval. For example, the
estimated percentage of grantees reporting that their school library
staff received professional development on school libraries during the
2005--06 school year was 78.99 percent, and the estimated standard error
is 0.982 percent. The 95 percent confidence interval for the statistic
extends from \[78.99-(0.982 times 1.96)\] to \[78.99+ (0.982 times
1.96)\] or from 77.07percent to 80.91 percent.

Because the samples of grantees and nongrantees were stratified samples,
standard variance estimates that assume a simple random sample are not
appropriate. Estimates of standard errors for this report were computed
using a technique known as a jackknife replication method. All specific
statements of comparison made in this report have been tested for
statistical significance, and they are significant at the 95 percent
confidence level or better (Exhibit B-2). In addition, Bonferroni
adjustments were made to control for multiple comparisons where
appropriate. Bonferroni adjustments correct for the fact that a number
of comparisons (*g*) are being made simultaneously. The adjustment is
made by dividing the 0.05 significance level by *g* comparisons,
effectively increasing the critical value necessary for a difference to
be statistically different. As a result of this adjustment, comparisons
that would have been significant with an unadjusted critical *t* value
of 1.96 may not be significant with the Bonferroni-adjusted critical *t*
value. For example, the Bonferroni-adjusted critical *t* value for
comparisons between any three of the four categories of urbanicity is
2.65 rather than 1.96. Consequently, there must be a larger difference
between the estimates being compared for there to be a statistically
significant difference when the Bonferroni adjustment is applied than
when it is not.

**Exhibit B-2\
Selected Standard Errors for School Survey Statistics**

  ------------------------------------------------------- ---------- ----------
  Questionnaire Item and Grantee Status                   Estimate   Standard
                                                                     Error

  **Grantees**                                                       

  Mean library usage per week per student enrolled,       1.438      0.0220
  spring 2006                                                        

  Mean number of materials checked out per student        2.163      0.0602
  enrolled, spring 2006                                              

  Mean number of nonschool hours of access, spring 2005   3.564      0.0636

  Q16. Staff received professional development on school  78.994     0.9821
  libraries (percentage)                                             

  Q19a. Overall reading/English collection in spring 2006 33.478     1.0353
  was excellent (percentage)                                         

  Q10. Worked monthly with principal and/or teachers on   42.257     1.2388
  curriculum issues (percentage)                                     

  **Nongrantees**                                                    

  Mean library usage per week per student enrolled,       1.175      0.1156
  spring 2006                                                        

  Mean number of materials checked out per student        1.875      0.2194
  enrolled, spring 2006                                              

  Mean number of nonschool hours of access, spring 2006   6.730      0.3536

  Q16. Staff received professional development on school  71.777     2.8603
  libraries (percentage)                                             

  Q19a. Overall reading/English collection in spring 2006 23.694     2.6295
  was excellent (percentage)                                         

  Q10. Worked monthly with principal and/or teachers on   29.349     2.6843
  curriculum issues (percentage)                                     
  ------------------------------------------------------- ---------- ----------

appendix C

School library questionnaire

+------------------------------------------------+---------------------+
| U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION                   | > O.M.B. No.:       |
|                                                | > 1875--0230        |
| OFFICE OF THE UNDER SECRETARY                  | >                   |
|                                                | > EXP. DATE:        |
| WASHINGTON, D.C. 20202                         | > 09/30/2009        |
|                                                |                     |
| **IMPROVING LITERACY THROUGH SCHOOL            |                     |
| LIBRARIES**                                    |                     |
|                                                |                     |
| **SCHOOL LIBRARY MEDIA CENTER SURVEY**         |                     |
+------------------------------------------------+---------------------+

This questionnaire is designed to be completed by the person who is most
knowledgeable about the school library media center. It is designed to
obtain information about individual school library media centers rather
than school systems. Please respond only for your individual school. If
your school does not have a library media center, please call REDA
International, Inc. at 1-800-646-7332.

+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| > RETURN COMPLETED FORM TO:       | > IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS CALL: |
| >                                 | >                                 |
| > REDA International, Inc.        | > 1--800--929-7332                |
| >                                 | >                                 |
| > School Library Media Center     | > OR E-MAIL:                      |
| > Survey                          | >                                 |
| >                                 | > adjangali@redainternational.com |
| > 11141 Georgia Avenue            |                                   |
| >                                 |                                   |
| > Suite 517                       |                                   |
| >                                 |                                   |
| > Wheaton, MD 20902               |                                   |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+

According to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, no persons are
required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a
valid OMB control number. The valid OMB control number for this
information is 1875--0230. The time required to complete this
information collection is estimated to average 55 minutes per response,
including the time to review instructions, search existing data
resources, gather the data needed, and complete and review the
information collected. If you have any comments concerning the accuracy
of the time estimate(s) or suggestions for improving this form, please
write to: U.S. Department of Education, Washington, DC 20202--4651. If
you have any comments or concerns regarding the status of your
individual submission of this form, write directly to: Beth Franklin,
U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, S.W., Washington, DC
20202.

**LIBRARY ORGANIZATION, USAGE, AND STAFFING**

***For this survey, a library media center (LMC) is defined as an
organized collection of printed and/or audiovisual and/or computer
resources that (a) is administered as a unit, (b) is located in a
designated place or places, and (c) makes resources and services
available to students, teachers, and administrators. It is this
definition, not the name, that is important; your school might call this
a library, media center, resource center, information center,
instructional materials center, learning resource center, or some other
name.***

1\. Around the first of April 2006, what was the total number of
students enrolled in this school in grades K-12 and comparable ungraded
levels? *(DO NOT include prekindergarten, postsecondary, or adult
education students.)*

students

2\. During a typical full week of school, approximately how many
students used the school library media center (LMC) in spring 2006 and
spring 2005? *(Both individual and group visits should be counted. If
multiple visits by one person, count each visit. Estimates may be
used.)*

> a\. In spring 2006: \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ students
>
> b\. In spring 2005: \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ students
>
> c\. How accurate are the above statistics? *(Circle one response.)*

Very accurate/we regularly collect data on library visits or made
special counts for one or more days. 1

Estimate is within 5 percent of the correct answer. 2

Estimate may be off by more than 5 percent. 3

3\. During a typical full week of school, what was the total number of
books and other materials checked out from the LMC in spring 2006 and
spring 2005?

> a\. In spring 2006: \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ books and other materials
>
> b\. In spring 2005: \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ books and other materials

4\. During a typical full week of school, what was the total number of
hours that your school's library media center was open in spring 2006
and spring 2005? *(Please include the time that your library was open
during nonschool hours, including weekends. Please round your answer to
the closest half hour.)*

> a\. In spring 2006: \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ Hours per week
>
> b\. In spring 2005: \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ Hours per week

5\. Did this school provide students with access to the LMC during
nonschool hours in spring 2006 and/or spring 2005? *(Circle one
response.)*

Yes, in both years 1

Yes, in spring 2006 only 2

Yes, in spring 2005 only 3

No, not in either year 4 SKIP TO QUESTION 8

6\. How many hours per day was your school library media center open
during nonschool hours during spring 2006 and spring 2005? *(Please
round your answer to the closest half hour. Enter 0 if your school was
not open for a particular time period. If your school library media
center was open before or after school, enter the number of days per
week it was open for extended hours.)*

+-----------+---------------------------+-----------------------------+
|           | **Spring 2006**           | **Spring 2005**             |
+-----------+---------------------------+-----------------------------+
| a\.       | > \_\_\_\_\_Hours per day | > \_\_\_\_\_Hours per day   |
| Before    | > \_\_\_\_\_ days per     | > \_\_\_\_\_ days per week  |
| school    | > week                    |                             |
+-----------+---------------------------+-----------------------------+
| b\. After | > \_\_\_\_\_Hours per day | > \_\_\_\_\_Hours per day   |
| school    | > \_\_\_\_\_ days per     | > \_\_\_\_\_ days per week  |
|           | > week                    |                             |
+-----------+---------------------------+-----------------------------+
| c\.       | > \_\_\_\_\_Hours         | > \_\_\_\_\_Hours           |
| Saturday  |                           |                             |
+-----------+---------------------------+-----------------------------+
| d\.       | > \_\_\_\_\_Hours         | > \_\_\_\_\_Hours           |
| Sunday    |                           |                             |
+-----------+---------------------------+-----------------------------+

7\. How did your school library use the extended hours during the
2005--06 school year? *(Circle one response on [each]{.underline}
line.)*

> **Yes No**
>
> a\. Specific programs, such as offering tutorials on search techniques
> 1 2
>
> b\. It was open to loan books 1 2
>
> c\. Book clubs 1 2
>
> d\. Other *(please specify)* 1 2

8\. How many days was your school library media center open during
summer vacation in 2006 and 2005?

> a\. In summer 2006: \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ Days
>
> b\. In summer 2005: \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ Days

9\. For each of the categories listed below, please indicate the number
of persons working full time and the number working part time in the
library media center in spring 2006 and spring 2005. Please include only
staff working full time in [this]{.underline} LMC. Staff working less
than full time in this LMC should be counted as part time, even if
employed full time by the school system. **Please report the number of
people ([not]{.underline} full-time equivalent) in each category,
counting each person only once.** (*If none, enter 0.*)

+----------------------------------------+------+------+------+------+
|                                        | **Sp |      | **Sp |      |
|                                        | ring |      | ring |      |
|                                        | 20   |      | 20   |      |
|                                        | 06** |      | 05** |      |
|                                        |      |      |      |      |
|                                        | *    |      | *    |      |
|                                        | *(Nu |      | *(Nu |      |
|                                        | mber |      | mber |      |
|                                        | of   |      | of   |      |
|                                        | staf |      | staf |      |
|                                        | f)** |      | f)** |      |
+----------------------------------------+------+------+------+------+
|                                        | **F  | **P  | **F  | **P  |
|                                        | ull\ | art\ | ull\ | art\ |
|                                        | ti   | ti   | ti   | ti   |
|                                        | me** | me** | me** | me** |
+----------------------------------------+------+------+------+------+
| a\. State-certified library media      |      |      |      |      |
| specialists (LMS)                      |      |      |      |      |
+----------------------------------------+------+------+------+------+
| b\. Professional staff                 |      |      |      |      |
| [not]{.underline} certified as LMS     |      |      |      |      |
+----------------------------------------+------+------+------+------+
| c\. Other paid employees, such as      |      |      |      |      |
| clerical staff, aides                  |      |      |      |      |
+----------------------------------------+------+------+------+------+
| d\. Parent volunteers                  |      |      |      |      |
+----------------------------------------+------+------+------+------+
| e\. Other adult volunteers             |      |      |      |      |
+----------------------------------------+------+------+------+------+
| f\. Total                              |      |      |      |      |
+----------------------------------------+------+------+------+------+

**PROGRAMS AND SERVICES**

*10. Please indicate how frequently the following services were provided
by staff in your school library media center during the 2005--06 school
year. (Circle one response on [each]{.underline}* line.)

+--------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+---+
|                                | *    |      |      |      |      |   |
|                                | *Fre |      |      |      |      |   |
|                                | quen |      |      |      |      |   |
|                                | cy** |      |      |      |      |   |
+--------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+---+
|                                | *    | **   | **M  | *    | *    |   |
|                                | *Dai | Week | onth | *Nev | *Not |   |
|                                | ly** | ly** | ly** | er** | appl |   |
|                                |      |      |      |      | icab |   |
|                                |      |      |      |      | le** |   |
+--------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+---+
| a\. Provide reference          |      |      |      |      |      |   |
| assistance to:                 |      |      |      |      |      |   |
+--------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+---+
| > 1\. students                 | 1    | 2    | 3    | 4    | 5    |   |
+--------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+---+
| > 2\. teachers                 | 1    | 2    | 3    | 4    | 5    |   |
+--------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+---+
| > 3\. administrators           | 1    | 2    | 3    | 4    | 5    |   |
+--------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+---+
| b\. Help students, teachers,   | 1    | 2    | 3    | 4    | 5    |   |
| and administrators find and    |      |      |      |      |      |   |
| use relevant information       |      |      |      |      |      |   |
| sources outside the school     |      |      |      |      |      |   |
+--------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+---+
|                                |      |      |      |      |      |   |
+--------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+---+
|                                | **M  | *    | **An | *    | *    |   |
|                                | onth | *Qua | nual | *Nev | *Not |   |
|                                | ly** | rter | ly** | er** | appl |   |
|                                |      | ly** |      |      | icab |   |
|                                |      |      |      |      | le** |   |
+--------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+---+
| c\. Assist teachers in         | 1    | 2    | 3    | 4    | 5    |   |
| designing, implementing, and   |      |      |      |      |      |   |
| evaluating research projects   |      |      |      |      |      |   |
| for students                   |      |      |      |      |      |   |
+--------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+---+
| d\. Work with the principal    | 1    | 2    | 3    | 4    | 5    |   |
| and/or teachers on curriculum  |      |      |      |      |      |   |
| issues                         |      |      |      |      |      |   |
+--------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+---+
| e\. Participate in             | 1    | 2    | 3    | 4    | 5    |   |
| grade-level, department, or    |      |      |      |      |      |   |
| team meetings                  |      |      |      |      |      |   |
+--------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+---+
| f\. Coordinate textbook        | 1    | 2    | 3    | 4    | 5    |   |
| selection, ordering, and       |      |      |      |      |      |   |
| distribution program in school |      |      |      |      |      |   |
+--------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+---+
| g\. Coordinate training        | 1    | 2    | 3    | 4    | 5    |   |
| programs about integrating     |      |      |      |      |      |   |
| educational technology into    |      |      |      |      |      |   |
| the curriculum for teachers    |      |      |      |      |      |   |
| and other staff                |      |      |      |      |      |   |
+--------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+---+

*11. During the 2005--06 school year, how frequently did library staff
work with classroom teachers in each of the following curricular areas?
(Circle one response on [each]{.underline}* line.)

  ------------------------ --------------- ------------- --------------- -------------- ----------- --------------
                           **Frequency**                                                            

                           **Weekly**      **Monthly**   **Quarterly**   **Annually**   **Never**   **Not
                                                                                                    applicable**

  a\. Reading/language     1               2             3               4              5           6
  arts                                                                                              

  b\. English              1               2             3               4              5           6

  c\. Mathematics          1               2             3               4              5           6

  d\. Science              1               2             3               4              5           6

  e\. Social studies       1               2             3               4              5           6
  ------------------------ --------------- ------------- --------------- -------------- ----------- --------------

*12. During the 2005--06 school year, how frequently did the LMC staff
provide the following services to classroom teachers in the area of
reading or English?(Circle one response on [each]{.underline}* line.)

  ------------------------ --------------- ------------- --------------- -------------- ----------- --------------
                           **Frequency**                                                            

                           **Weekly**      **Monthly**   **Quarterly**   **Annually**   **Never**   **Not
                                                                                                    applicable**

  a\. Work with teachers   1               2             3               4              5           6
  in selecting and                                                                                  
  evaluating library media                                                                          
  resources in reading or                                                                           
  English                                                                                           

  b\. Work with teachers   1               2             3               4              5           6
  in curriculum                                                                                     
  development in                                                                                    
  reading/English                                                                                   

  c\. Collaboratively      1               2             3               4              5           6
  [teach]{.underline}                                                                               
  reading/English                                                                                   
  curriculum units with                                                                             
  classroom teachers                                                                                

  d\. Collaboratively      1               2             3               4              5           6
  evaluate reading/English                                                                          
  curriculum units with                                                                             
  classroom teachers                                                                                
  ------------------------ --------------- ------------- --------------- -------------- ----------- --------------

13\. How was instruction in information skills provided to students in
school year 2005--06? *(Circle one response on [each]{.underline}
line.)*

**Yes No**

> a\. In an information skills course 1 2
>
> b\. Integrated into other curriculum areas 1 2

14\. Who provided the instruction in information skills to students in
school year 2005--06? *(Circle one response on [each]{.underline}
line.)*

**Yes No**

> a\. Library media specialist 1 2
>
> b\. Classroom teachers 1 2
>
> c\. Other *(please specify)* 1 2

15\. Which of the following services and programs were new to your
library in 2005--06 and which ones were expanded in 2005--06 compared to
2004--05? (*Circle one response on [each]{.underline} line.*)

  -------------------------------- ------------ ------------ ---------- ------------- -----------
                                   **New in     **Expanded   **No       **Decreased   **Not
                                   2005--06**   in           change**   or eliminated performed
                                                2005--06**              in 2005--06** in either
                                                                                      year**

  a\. Assist teachers in           1            2            3          4             5
  designing, implementing, and                                                        
  evaluating research projects for                                                    
  students                                                                            

  b\. Work with the principal      1            2            3          4             5
  and/or teachers on curriculum                                                       
  issues                                                                              

  c\. Participate in grade-level,  1            2            3          4             5
  department, or team meetings                                                        

  d\. Coordinate textbook          1            2            3          4             5
  selection, ordering, and                                                            
  distribution program in school                                                      

  e\. Coordinate training programs 1            2            3          4             5
  about integrating educational                                                       
  technology into the curriculum                                                      
  for teachers and other staff                                                        

  f\. Work with teachers in        1            2            3          4             5
  selecting and evaluating library                                                    
  media resources in reading or                                                       
  English                                                                             

  g\. Work with teachers in        1            2            3          4             5
  curriculum development in                                                           
  reading/English                                                                     

  h\. Collaboratively              1            2            3          4             5
  [teach]{.underline}                                                                 
  reading/English curriculum units                                                    
  with classroom teachers                                                             

  i\. Collaboratively evaluate     1            2            3          4             5
  reading/English curriculum units                                                    
  with classroom teachers \`                                                          

  j\. Provide instruction in       1            2            3          4             5
  information skills                                                                  

  k\. Provide family literacy      1            2            3          4             5
  nights                                                                              

  l\. Provide junior scholars      1            2            3          4             5
  after-school programs                                                               

  m\. Provide after-school program 1            2            3          4             5
  with a library orientation                                                          

  n\. Provide books clubs          1            2            3          4             5
  -------------------------------- ------------ ------------ ---------- ------------- -----------

*16. To what extent, if any, is each of the following a barrier to your
library's ability to provide services during nonschool hours during the
school year? (Circle one response on [each]{.underline}* line.)

  -------------------------------- ----------- ----------- ------------ -----------
                                   **No\       **Small\    **Moderate   **Major\
                                   barrier**   barrier**   barrier**    barrier**

  a\. Availability of library      1           2           3            4
  staff                                                                 

  b\. Transportation for students  1           2           3            4

  c\. Transportation for parents   1           2           3            4
  to participate in family                                              
  programs                                                              

  d\. Availability of parents to   1           2           3            4
  participate in family programs                                        

  e\. Safety concerns              1           2           3            4
  -------------------------------- ----------- ----------- ------------ -----------

**PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT**

17\. Did any staff in your school receive professional development on
topics related to school libraries during the 2005--06 or 2004--05
school years?

> Yes 1
>
> No 2 SKIP TO QUESTION 20

18\. How many of the following types of staff received professional
development related to school libraries during the 2005--06 and 2004--05
school years?

  ---- ---------------------------------------------- -------------- --------------
                                                      **Number of    
                                                      staff**        

                                                      **2005--06**   **2004--05**
  ---- ---------------------------------------------- -------------- --------------

> a\. Principal
>
> b\. School library media specialist(s)
>
> c\. Reading specialist(s)
>
> d\. Classroom teacher(s)
>
> e\. Other paid employee(s), such as paraprofessional(s), clerical(s),
> or aide(s)
>
> f\. Other (*please specify*)

*19. Were the following topics related to school libraries covered in
the professional development activities? (Circle one response on
[each]{.underline}* line.)

  ----------------------------------------- -------------- -------- -------------- --------
                                            **2005--06**            **2004--05**   

                                            **Yes**        **No**   **Yes**        **No**
  ----------------------------------------- -------------- -------- -------------- --------

> a\. How to select books and materials that align with the curriculum 1
> 2 1 2
>
> b\. How to integrate educational technology into the curriculum 1 2 1
> 2
>
> c\. Methods in which teachers and school library media specialists can
> collaborate 1 2 1 2
>
> d\. Teaching children to read 1 2 1 2
>
> e\. Motivating students to read 1 2 1 2
>
> f\. Providing instruction in information skills to students 1 2 1 2
>
> g\. Converting to an electronic catalog or circulation system 1 2 1 2
>
> h\. Learning how to use online resources 1 2 1 2
>
> i\. Other (*please specify*) 1 2 1 2
>
> j\. Other (*please specify*) 1 2 1 2

**MATERIALS AND RESOURCES**

20\. In your opinion, how adequate were the LMC's holdings in supporting
the instructional program in [reading/English]{.underline} in spring
2006 and in spring 2005? *(Circle one response for spring 2006 and one
response for spring 2005 on [each]{.underline} line.)*

> 1 = Inadequate -- few, poor quality, or outdated materials available
> to support the instructional program
>
> 2 = Adequate -- library has enough good quality current materials to
> support the instructional program
>
> 3 = Excellent -- library has a very good to excellent selection of
> high quality current materials to support the instructional program

  ------------------------ ---------------- -------------- --------------- ---------------- -------------- ---------------
                           **Spring 2006**                                 **Spring 2005**                 

                           **Inadequate**   **Adequate**   **Excellent**   **Inadequate**   **Adequate**   **Excellent**

  a\. Overall              1                2              3               1                2              3
  reading/English                                                                                          
  collection                                                                                               

  b\. Print materials      1                2              3               1                2              3

  c\. Video and other      1                2              3               1                2              3
  audiovisual materials                                                                                    

  d\. Computer software    1                2              3               1                2              3
  ------------------------ ---------------- -------------- --------------- ---------------- -------------- ---------------

21\. For each of the following areas, please indicate the adequacy of
the LMC's resources in meeting the school's needs in that area in spring
2006 and spring 2005. *(Circle one response on [each]{.underline}
line.)*

  --------------------------------- ---------------- -------------- --------------- --------------
                                    **Spring 2006**                                 

                                    **Inadequate**   **Adequate**   **Excellent**   **Not
                                                                                    applicable**

  a\. English as a second language  1                2              3               4

  b\. Multicultural materials       1                2              3               4

  c\. High interest-low vocabulary  1                2              3               4

  d\. Picture books/easy readers    1                2              3               4

  e\. Proprietary online            1                2              3               4
  resources/subscriptions                                                           

                                                                                    

                                    **Spring 2005**                                 

                                    **Inadequate**   **Adequate**   **Excellent**   **Not
                                                                                    applicable**

  f\. English as a second language  1                2              3               4

  g\. Multicultural materials       1                2              3               4

  h\. High interest-low vocabulary  1                2              3               4

  i\. Picture books/easy readers    1                2              3               4

  j\. Proprietary online            1                2              3               4
  resources/subscriptions                                                           
  --------------------------------- ---------------- -------------- --------------- --------------

22\. What is the copyright year of the LMC's most recent world atlas?
(*Please write one answer for whatever format, e.g., print, CD-ROM,
online, is most recent.)* \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

23\. What is the copyright year of this LMC's most recent general
knowledge encyclopedia? (*Please write one answer for whatever format,
e.g., print, CD-ROM, online, is most recent.)* \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

*24. What are the average copyright years of your fiction and nonfiction
collections?* (If you are not able to make precise calculations, please
provide your best estimates. Please provide a single year for each
collection and not a range of years.)

  --------------------------------------------- -------------------------
  a\. Fiction collection                        

  b\. Nonfiction collection, including          
  reference materials                           
  --------------------------------------------- -------------------------

> c\. How accurate are your responses to 23a and 23b above? *(Circle one
> response.)*

Highly accurate/comes directly from recent search of records or computer
database 1

Estimate should be within 2 years of correct date 2

Estimate should be within 5 years of correct date 3

Estimate could easily be off by more than 5 years 4

*25. On what basis did you select the books you added to your collection
during the 2005--06 school year? (Circle one response on
[each]{.underline}* line.)

  --------------------------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- --------------
                                    **Not\        **Somewhat    **Very        **Not used/\
                                    important**   important**   important**   not
                                                                              applicable**

  --------------------------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- --------------

> a\. The books had won awards 1 2 3 4
>
> b\. Lost books were replaced 1 2 3 4
>
> c\. Books were selected in consultation with the classroom teachers 1
> 2 3 4
>
> d\. Books were selected in consultation with the reading specialist 1
> 2 3 4
>
> e\. The focus was on categories that become quickly outdated 1 2 3 4
>
> f\. Books were selected to strengthen particular subject areas 1 2 3 4
>
> g\. Other *(please specify)* 1 2 3 4

26\. Is the following equipment located within this library media
center? *(Circle one response on [each]{.underline} line.)*

**Yes No**

> a\. Automated circulation system 1 2
>
> b\. Video laser disc or DVD 1 2
>
> c\. Technology to assist patrons with disabilities (e.g., TDD) 1 2

27\. Are the following electronic services available in the library
media center either through stand-alone computers (not linked to a
network), library local area network (LAN), building-wide LAN, or
district wide area network (WAN)? *(Circle all that apply on
[each]{.underline} line.)*

  --------------------------- ------------------- ------------ ----------------- ------------ -------------
                              **Stand-alone       **Library\   **Building-wide   **District   **Not\
                              computer\           LAN**        LAN**             WAN**        available**
                              (non-networked)**                                               

  a\. Automated catalogs      1                   2            3                 4            5

  b\. CD-ROMS                 1                   2            3                 4            5

  c\. Internet access (e.g.,  1                   2            3                 4            5
  Internet Explorer,                                                                          
  Netscape)                                                                                   

  d\. E-mail                  1                   2            3                 4            5

  e\. Electronic full-text    1                   2            3                 4            5
  periodicals                                                                                 
  --------------------------- ------------------- ------------ ----------------- ------------ -------------

28\. Please indicate whether or not your LMC has computer access (by the
Internet or other networks) to the catalog of the following? *(Circle
one response on [each]{.underline} line.)*

**Yes No**

> a\. Public library 1 2
>
> b\. Community college library 1 2
>
> c\. College or university library (excluding community college) 1 2
>
> d\. Other school libraries in your district 1 2
>
> e\. School libraries outside your district 1 2

29\. During the last 12 months, did your school participate in
[any]{.underline} cooperative activity with a local public library?
Examples of cooperative activities include borrowing books for the
school library, informing the public library of students' upcoming
homework needs, sharing online resources, and planning for a summer
reading program.

Yes 1

No 2 SKIP TO QUESTION 32

Not applicable, public library has bookmobile service only 3 SKIP TO
QUESTION 32

Not applicable, there is no local public library or bookmobile service 4
SKIP TO QUESTION 32

*30. During the last 12 months, how often did your school participate in
the following cooperative activities with one or more local public
libraries? (Circle one on [each]{.underline}* line.)

  ------------------------ --------------- ------------- --------------- -------------- ----------- --------------
                           **Frequency**                                                            

                           **Weekly**      **Monthly**   **Quarterly**   **Annually**   **Never**   **Not
                                                                                                    applicable**

  a\. Borrowing books or   1               2             3               4              5           6
  other materials for the                                                                           
  school library                                                                                    

  b\. Borrowing books or   1               2             3               4              5           6
  other materials for                                                                               
  classroom teachers                                                                                

  c\. Informing the public 1               2             3               4              5           6
  library of curriculum or                                                                          
  upcoming homework needs                                                                           

  d\. Coordinating         1               2             3               4              5           6
  regarding student                                                                                 
  research projects,                                                                                
  including science fairs                                                                           

  e\. Participating in     1               2             3               4              5           6
  automation projects such                                                                          
  as shared online                                                                                  
  resources, searches,                                                                              
  etc.                                                                                              
  ------------------------ --------------- ------------- --------------- -------------- ----------- --------------

31\. Did your school work with the public library in planning for a
summer reading program conducted for school-age children last summer?

Yes 1

No 2

**HOLDINGS AND EXPENDITURES**

*32. During the 2005--06 school year, what were the total holdings,
additions, and expenditures for the library media center for each of the
following kinds of materials? (Any subscriptions that were renewed in
2005--06 should be included in Column 2. If you are not able to get an
exact count, please provide your best [estimate]{.underline}*.)

+-------------------------------+------------+------------+------------+
|                               | **(1)\     | **(2)\     | **(3)\     |
|                               | Total      | Number     | Report the |
|                               | number     | ACQUIRED   | amount     |
|                               | held at    | DURING\    | spent for  |
|                               | the END    | the        | rental\    |
|                               | of\        | 2005--06\  | and        |
|                               | the        | school     | purchase   |
|                               | 2005--06\  | year**     | during     |
|                               | school     |            | the\       |
|                               | year**     |            | 2005--06   |
|                               |            |            | school\    |
|                               |            |            | year.      |
|                               |            |            | Round to\  |
|                               |            |            | the        |
|                               |            |            | nearest    |
|                               |            |            | dollar.**  |
+-------------------------------+------------+------------+------------+
| a\. Books (count all copies)  |            |            | > \$       |
+-------------------------------+------------+------------+------------+
| b\. Video materials (tape,    |            |            | > \$       |
| DVD or laser disc titles. Do  |            |            |            |
| not report duplicates)        |            |            |            |
+-------------------------------+------------+------------+------------+
| c\. CD-ROM titles (do not     |            |            | > \$       |
| report duplicates)            |            |            |            |
+-------------------------------+------------+------------+------------+
| d\. Current print or          |            |            | > \$       |
| microform periodical          |            |            |            |
| subscriptions (do not report  |            |            |            |
| duplicates)                   |            |            |            |
+-------------------------------+------------+------------+------------+
| e\. Electronic subscriptions  |            |            | > \$       |
+-------------------------------+------------+------------+------------+

*For Questions 33 through 35, if you are not able to get an exact
amount, please provide your best [estimate]{.underline}.*

33\. What was the TOTAL expenditure for all materials for this library
media center during the 2005--06 and 2004--05 school years? *(This total
should include all the types of materials listed above in Question 32 as
well as other materials such as globes, posters, and pictures. Supplies
should not be included.)*

> a\. Total expenditure for materials in 2005--06 \$
>
> b\. Total expenditure for materials in 2004--05 \$

34\. What was the total expenditure for computer hardware, other than
communications equipment, for this library media center during the
2005--06 and 2004--05 school years? (*Include expenditures for purchase,
rental, and/or lease.*)

> a\. Total expenditure for computer hardware in 2005--06
> \$\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
>
> b\. Total expenditure for computer hardware in 2004--05
> \$\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

35\. What was the total expenditure for audiovisual equipment for this
library media center during the 2005--06 and 2004--05 school years?
(*Include expenditures for purchase, rental, and/or lease.*)

> a\. Total expenditure for audiovisual equipment in 2005--06
> \$\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
>
> b\. Total expenditure for audiovisual equipment in 2004--05
> \$\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

**SCHOOL INFORMATION**

*36. What grades are offered in your school? (Circle all grades that
apply [or]{.underline}* if your school is ungraded, specify ages of
children enrolled.)

  ------- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---- ---- ---- -----------------
  Pre-K   K   1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   11   12   Ungraded, specify
                                                                 age groups:

  ------- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---- ---- ---- -----------------

37\. Does your school have a computer lab?

Yes 1

No 2 SKIP TO QUESTION 39

38\. Is the computer lab considered part of the school library? *(The
computer lab may be physically separate from the rest of the school
library.)*

Yes 1

No 2

39\. Within the past 2 years, has your school conducted a needs
assessment of school LMC programs and services? *(Circle one response on
[each]{.underline} line.)*

Yes 1

No 2 SKIP TO QUESTION 41

40\. For each of the categories listed below, please indicate in column
(1) whether or not that need was identified in the needs assessment; and
in column (2) whether or not changes were made in that area as a result
of the needs assessment. *(Circle yes or no in [each]{.underline} of the
two columns for [each]{.underline} need.)*

  ------------------------------------------------ -------------- -------- ---------- --------
                                                   **(1) Need              **(2)      
                                                   identified**            Changes    
                                                                           made as a  
                                                                           result**   

                                                   **Yes**        **No**   **Yes**    **No**

  a\. More library staff                           1              2        1          2

  b\. More materials in languages other than       1              2        1          2
  English                                                                             

  c\. More up-to-date materials                    1              2        1          2

  d\. More time for planning with teachers         1              2        1          2

  e\. More space                                   1              2        1          2

  f\. More computer equipment                      1              2        1          2

  g\. Rewiring the LMC                             1              2        1          2

  h\. Flexible scheduling                          1              2        1          2

  i\. More staff training                          1              2        1          2

  j\. More hours in which the LMC is open          1              2        1          2

  k\. Other *(please specify)*                     1              2        1          2
  ------------------------------------------------ -------------- -------- ---------- --------

41\. Has your school ever participated in the Improving Literacy Through
School Libraries Program?

Yes 1

No 2 SKIP TO QUESTION 43

42\. In what school years has your school participated in the Improving
Literacy Through School Libraries Program? *(Circle one response on
[each]{.underline} line.)*

**Yes No**

> a\. 2002--03 1 2
>
> b\. 2003--04 1 2
>
> c\. 2004--05 1 2
>
> d\. 2005--06 1 2
>
> e\. 2006--07 1 2

43\. Did your school participate in any of the following federal
education programs during the 2005--06 school year? *(Circle one
response on [each]{.underline} line.)*

**Yes No**

> a\. Reading First 1 2
>
> b\. Early Reading First 1 2
>
> c\. Comprehensive School Reform (CSR) 1 2
>
> d\. Title I 1 2
>
> e\. 21st Century Community Learning Centers 1 2
>
> f\. Other *(please specify)* 1 2

44\. How much did your school library receive from the following outside
sources of funding during the 2005--06 school year? *(Write one response
on [each]{.underline} line If you did not receive any funds from a
listed source, write \$0. Do not include in-kind contributions such as
donations of books.)*

**Amount of funding**

> a\. State allotment \$\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
>
> b\. Corporate donors, such as Partners in Education
> \$\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
>
> c\. Not-for-profit group *(please specify)* \$\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
>
> d\. Other *(please specify)* \$\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

45\. Of the students taking the state-mandated proficiency tests at your
school during the 2005--06 school year, what percentage were at your
school at the start of the school year? *(Circle one response.)*

> a\. Less than 20 percent 1
>
> b\. 21 to 40 percent 2
>
> c\. 41 to 60 percent 3
>
> d\. 61 to 80 percent 4
>
> e\. 81 percent or more 5

46\. How many students enrolled in grades K--12 in your school in April
2006 had IEPs (individualized education programs) for special education?

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ students

**RESPONDENT INFORMATION**

47\. Which one of the following categories best describes your position
at this school? *(Circle one response.)*

> State-certified library media specialist (LMS) 1
>
> Professional library staff member [no]{.underline}t certified as LMS 2
>
> Principal 3
>
> Teacher 4
>
> Other paid employee, such as paraprofessional, clerical or aide 5
>
> Volunteer 6
>
> Other *(please specify)* 7
>
> Is there anything else we should know about your school library media
> center?

thank you!

appendix d

district performance report

+---------------------------+-------------+----+---+---+-----------------+
| ## **Improving Literacy T |             |    | O |   |                 |
| hrough School Libraries** |             |    | M |   |                 |
|                           |             |    | B |   |                 |
|                           |             |    | N |   |                 |
|                           |             |    | o |   |                 |
|                           |             |    | . |   |                 |
|                           |             |    | 1 |   |                 |
|                           |             |    | 8 |   |                 |
|                           |             |    | 1 |   |                 |
|                           |             |    | 0 |   |                 |
|                           |             |    | - |   |                 |
|                           |             |    | 0 |   |                 |
|                           |             |    | 6 |   |                 |
|                           |             |    | 6 |   |                 |
|                           |             |    | 7 |   |                 |
|                           |             |    | \ |   |                 |
|                           |             |    | E |   |                 |
|                           |             |    | x |   |                 |
|                           |             |    | p |   |                 |
|                           |             |    | . |   |                 |
|                           |             |    | D |   |                 |
|                           |             |    | a |   |                 |
|                           |             |    | t |   |                 |
|                           |             |    | e |   |                 |
|                           |             |    | : |   |                 |
|                           |             |    | 1 |   |                 |
|                           |             |    | 1 |   |                 |
|                           |             |    | / |   |                 |
|                           |             |    | 3 |   |                 |
|                           |             |    | 0 |   |                 |
|                           |             |    | / |   |                 |
|                           |             |    | 2 |   |                 |
|                           |             |    | 0 |   |                 |
|                           |             |    | 0 |   |                 |
|                           |             |    | 7 |   |                 |
+---------------------------+-------------+----+---+---+-----------------+
| Cover Sheet/Final Grant   | 1\)         |    |   |   |                 |
| Report                    | PR/Award No |    |   |   |                 |
+---------------------------+-------------+----+---+---+-----------------+
| See Block 5 on the Grant  | S364A030­­­\   |    |   |   |                 |
| Award Notification.       | _\_\_\_\_\_ |    |   |   |                 |
+---------------------------+-------------+----+---+---+-----------------+
| District Common Core Data |             |    |   |   |                 |
| Number                    |             |    |   |   |                 |
+---------------------------+-------------+----+---+---+-----------------+
| <http://nces.e            | 2\) Project |    |   |   |                 |
| d.gov/ccd/districtsearch> | Title       |    |   |   |                 |
+---------------------------+-------------+----+---+---+-----------------+
| Enter the same title as   |             |    |   |   |                 |
| on the approved           |             |    |   |   |                 |
| application.              |             |    |   |   |                 |
+---------------------------+-------------+----+---+---+-----------------+
|                           | 3\)         |    |   |   |                 |
|                           | Recipient   |    |   |   |                 |
|                           | Information |    |   |   |                 |
+---------------------------+-------------+----+---+---+-----------------+
| Repeat from Block 1 on    | Name:       |    |   |   |                 |
| Grant Award Notification. |             |    |   |   |                 |
| If address has changed,   |             |    |   |   |                 |
| provide the current       |             |    |   |   |                 |
| address.                  |             |    |   |   |                 |
+---------------------------+-------------+----+---+---+-----------------+
|                           | Address     |    |   |   |                 |
+---------------------------+-------------+----+---+---+-----------------+
|                           | City:       | St |   |   | Zip+4:          |
|                           |             | at |   |   |                 |
|                           |             | e: |   |   |                 |
+---------------------------+-------------+----+---+---+-----------------+
|                           | 4\) Contact |    |   |   |                 |
|                           | Person      |    |   |   |                 |
+---------------------------+-------------+----+---+---+-----------------+
| Provide the name of the   | Name:       |    |   |   |                 |
| project director or the   |             |    |   |   |                 |
| contact person who is     |             |    |   |   |                 |
| most familiar with the    |             |    |   |   |                 |
| content of the            |             |    |   |   |                 |
| performance report.       |             |    |   |   |                 |
+---------------------------+-------------+----+---+---+-----------------+
|                           | Title:      |    |   |   |                 |
+---------------------------+-------------+----+---+---+-----------------+
|                           | Telephone   |    |   |   |                 |
|                           | Number:     |    |   |   |                 |
+---------------------------+-------------+----+---+---+-----------------+
|                           | Fax Number: |    |   |   |                 |
+---------------------------+-------------+----+---+---+-----------------+
|                           | E-mail      |    |   |   |                 |
|                           | Address:    |    |   |   |                 |
+---------------------------+-------------+----+---+---+-----------------+
|                           | 5\)         |    |   |   |                 |
|                           | Reporting   |    |   |   |                 |
|                           | Period      |    |   |   |                 |
+---------------------------+-------------+----+---+---+-----------------+
| Include the interval for  | \-          |    |   |   |                 |
| the information requested | \_\_        |    |   |   |                 |
| in the performance        | \_\_/\_\_\_ |    |   |   |                 |
| reporting period.         | \_/\_\_\_\_ |    |   |   |                 |
|                           | (mm/dd/yy)  |    |   |   |                 |
+---------------------------+-------------+----+---+---+-----------------+
|                           | 6\) Total   |    |   |   |                 |
|                           | E           |    |   |   |                 |
|                           | xpenditures |    |   |   |                 |
+---------------------------+-------------+----+---+---+-----------------+
| Report actual budget      | Federal \$  |    |   | N |                 |
| expenditures for the      |             |    |   | o |                 |
| above performance         |             |    |   | n |                 |
| reporting period.         |             |    |   | - |                 |
|                           |             |    |   | F |                 |
| Provide the District's    |             |    |   | e |                 |
| indirect cost rate        |             |    |   | d |                 |
|                           |             |    |   | e |                 |
|                           |             |    |   | r |                 |
|                           |             |    |   | a |                 |
|                           |             |    |   | l |                 |
|                           |             |    |   | \ |                 |
|                           |             |    |   | $ |                 |
|                           |             |    |   |   |                 |
|                           |             |    |   | ( |                 |
|                           |             |    |   | i |                 |
|                           |             |    |   | f |                 |
|                           |             |    |   | a |                 |
|                           |             |    |   | p |                 |
|                           |             |    |   | p |                 |
|                           |             |    |   | l |                 |
|                           |             |    |   | i |                 |
|                           |             |    |   | c |                 |
|                           |             |    |   | a |                 |
|                           |             |    |   | b |                 |
|                           |             |    |   | l |                 |
|                           |             |    |   | e |                 |
|                           |             |    |   | ) |                 |
+---------------------------+-------------+----+---+---+-----------------+
|                           |             |    |   |   |                 |
+---------------------------+-------------+----+---+---+-----------------+
|                           | Negotiated  |    |   |   |                 |
|                           | Indirect    |    |   |   |                 |
|                           | Cost Rate:  |    |   |   |                 |
|                           | \_\_\_\_\_% |    |   |   |                 |
+---------------------------+-------------+----+---+---+-----------------+
|                           |             |    |   |   |                 |
+---------------------------+-------------+----+---+---+-----------------+

**Authorized Representative:**

To the best of my knowledge and belief, all data in this performance
report are true and correct.

  ------------------------------------------ ----------------------------
  Name (typed or printed):                   Title:

  Signature:                                 Date:
  ------------------------------------------ ----------------------------

improving literacy through school libraries program\
Final grant report

**Part I. Please provide the following information:**

A.  Cover Sheet -- see attached. Complete the cover sheet according to
    the instructions provided.

-   ED Form 524-B

B.  Executive Summary

-   Provide a one- to two-page Executive Summary describing the project
    and highlighting key accomplishments.

C.  Project Performance

-   Report on how you met each one of your project objectives, i.e.,
    areas proposed in Use of Funds section and/or other applicable
    sections of your original application.

D.  Project Evaluation

-   Provide a copy of your program evaluation report.

    **Part II. Please answer the following questions:**

    **SCHOOLS SERVED AND EXTENDED HOURS**

1\. On what basis were schools selected for participation in the
Improving Literacy through School Libraries Program? (*Circle one
response on each line*.)

If your district has only one school, please check this box and skip to
Question 2.

**Yes No**

> a\. Percentage of all schools in the district were selected 1 2
>
> b\. Percentage of all schools serving a particular grade level were
> served\
> *(please specify level*) 1 2
>
> c\. The neediest schools based on poverty level 1 2
>
> d\. The neediest schools based on lack of library resources 1 2
>
> e\. The neediest schools based on those identified for improvement
> under *No Child Left Behind* 1 2
>
> f\. Other (*please specify*) 1 2

2\. Who participated in the decision regarding which schools to serve?
(*Circle* *one response on each line*.)

**Yes No**

> a\. District school library coordinator 1 2
>
> b\. District reading curriculum coordinator 1 2
>
> c\. Superintendent(s) 1 2
>
> d\. Principal(s) 1 2
>
> e\. School library media specialist(s) 1 2
>
> f\. Reading specialist(s) 1 2
>
> g\. Classroom teacher(s) 1 2
>
> h\. Parent(s) 1 2
>
> i\. Other *(please specify*) 1 2

3\. How many schools were served under the grant? \_\_\_\_\_\_ Schools

4\. In the table below, please list each school served under the grant
in column 1. The grade levels served under the grant in each school
should be entered in column 2; and the number of students served under
the grant in each school should be entered in column 3. (While most
schools planned to serve all students under the grant, some schools
planned to target only certain grades. When only certain grades
participated in the grant, only those grades and the total number of
students in the targeted grades should be entered in the table.) In
column 4, please enter the total number of hours per week that the
library in each school was open during nonschool hours (i.e., extended
hours) during the school year of the grant. Please include the hours
that the school was open before and after school and on weekends. If the
library was not open during nonschool hours, please enter 0. In column
5, please enter the total number of hours per week that the library was
open during nonschool hours during the school year prior to the grant.

NOTE: Please make as many copies of this page as needed to cover all
schools served under the grant.

+------------------+------------+------------+------------+-----------+
| **School         | **Grades   | **Number   | **Total    |           |
| served**         | served**   | of         | number of  |           |
|                  |            | students   | extended   |           |
| **(1)**          | **(2)**    | served**   | hours [per |           |
|                  |            |            | week]{.un  |           |
|                  |            | **(3)**    | derline}** |           |
+------------------+------------+------------+------------+-----------+
|                  |            |            | **Year of  | **Year    |
|                  |            |            | the        | prior to  |
|                  |            |            | grant**    | the       |
|                  |            |            |            | grant**   |
|                  |            |            | **(4)**    |           |
|                  |            |            |            | **(5)**   |
+------------------+------------+------------+------------+-----------+
|                  |            |            |            |           |
+------------------+------------+------------+------------+-----------+
|                  |            |            |            |           |
+------------------+------------+------------+------------+-----------+
|                  |            |            |            |           |
+------------------+------------+------------+------------+-----------+
|                  |            |            |            |           |
+------------------+------------+------------+------------+-----------+
|                  |            |            |            |           |
+------------------+------------+------------+------------+-----------+
|                  |            |            |            |           |
+------------------+------------+------------+------------+-----------+
|                  |            |            |            |           |
+------------------+------------+------------+------------+-----------+
|                  |            |            |            |           |
+------------------+------------+------------+------------+-----------+
|                  |            |            |            |           |
+------------------+------------+------------+------------+-----------+
|                  |            |            |            |           |
+------------------+------------+------------+------------+-----------+
|                  |            |            |            |           |
+------------------+------------+------------+------------+-----------+
|                  |            |            |            |           |
+------------------+------------+------------+------------+-----------+
|                  |            |            |            |           |
+------------------+------------+------------+------------+-----------+
|                  |            |            |            |           |
+------------------+------------+------------+------------+-----------+
|                  |            |            |            |           |
+------------------+------------+------------+------------+-----------+
|                  |            |            |            |           |
+------------------+------------+------------+------------+-----------+

5\. If extended hours were not provided, please check this box and skip
to question 7.

During the grant year, how many [schools]{.underline} extended hours at
each of the following times?

> **Number of schools**
>
> **extending hours**
>
> a\. Before school
>
> b\. After school
>
> c\. Saturday
>
> d\. Sunday
>
> e\. Summer

6\. During the grant year, how many [schools]{.underline} staffed the
library with the following kinds of personnel during extended hours?

**Number of schools**

> a\. School library media specialists
>
> b\. Library aides
>
> c\. Classroom teachers
>
> d\. Volunteers

######## **Other (please** **specify)** 

######## **SCHOOL LIBRARY PURCHASES**

7\. In the table below, please list each school and its CCD# served
under the grant in column 1. For each school served, please enter the
total number of books purchased during the grant year in column 2, and
the total number of books purchased during the school year prior to the
grant in column 3. For each school, please provide the number of
[titles]{.underline} of other media resources (e.g., tapes, DVDs, laser
discs, and CD-ROMs) purchased during the grant year in column 4, and the
number of [titles]{.underline} of other media resources purchased during
the year prior to the grant in column 5. For each school, please provide
the number of computers purchased for the library during the grant year
in column 6 and the number of computers purchased during the year prior
to the grant in column 7.

NOTE: Please make as many copies of this page as needed to cover all
schools served under the grant.

+---------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| **School served**/  | **N   |       | **N   |       | **N   |       |
|                     | umber |       | umber |       | umber |       |
| **Common            | of    |       | of    |       | of    |       |
| CoreDataNumber(1)** | books |       | [titl |       | comp  |       |
|                     | p     |       | es]{. |       | uters |       |
| **[http://nces.     | urcha |       | under |       | purc  |       |
| ed.gov/ccd/schoolse | sed** |       | line} |       | hased |       |
| arch]{.underline}** |       |       | of    |       | for   |       |
|                     |       |       | other |       | the   |       |
|                     |       |       | media |       | libr  |       |
|                     |       |       | reso  |       | ary** |       |
|                     |       |       | urces |       |       |       |
|                     |       |       | p     |       |       |       |
|                     |       |       | urcha |       |       |       |
|                     |       |       | sed** |       |       |       |
+=====================+=======+=======+=======+=======+=======+=======+
|                     | *     | *     | *     | *     | *     | *     |
|                     | *Year | *Year | *Year | *Year | *Year | *Year |
|                     | of    | prior | of    | prior | of    | prior |
|                     | the   | to    | the   | to    | the   | to    |
|                     | gr    | the   | gr    | the   | gr    | the   |
|                     | ant** | gr    | ant** | gr    | ant** | gr    |
|                     |       | ant** |       | ant** |       | ant** |
|                     | **    |       | **    |       | **    |       |
|                     | (2)** | **    | (4)** | **    | (6)** | **    |
|                     |       | (3)** |       | (5)** |       | (7)** |
+---------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
|                     |       |       |       |       |       |       |
+---------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
|                     |       |       |       |       |       |       |
+---------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
|                     |       |       |       |       |       |       |
+---------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
|                     |       |       |       |       |       |       |
+---------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
|                     |       |       |       |       |       |       |
+---------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
|                     |       |       |       |       |       |       |
+---------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
|                     |       |       |       |       |       |       |
+---------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
|                     |       |       |       |       |       |       |
+---------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
|                     |       |       |       |       |       |       |
+---------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
|                     |       |       |       |       |       |       |
+---------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
|                     |       |       |       |       |       |       |
+---------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
|                     |       |       |       |       |       |       |
+---------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
|                     |       |       |       |       |       |       |
+---------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
|                     |       |       |       |       |       |       |
+---------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
|                     |       |       |       |       |       |       |
+---------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+

8\. Which of the following areas, if any, did your district target for
buying additional books with grant funds?

########  Yes No

> a\. Fiction 1 2
>
> b\. Updating of science collection 1 2
>
> c\. Updating collection on history and/or biography 1 2
>
> d\. Filling holes in particular areas (*please specify*) 1 2
>
> e\. General upgrading of entire collection 1 2
>
> f\. Decisions on book purchases were made by schools, not the district
> 1 2
>
> g\. Other areas targeted by the district *(please specify)* 1 2

######## **PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT**

9\. Was any professional development provided by the district under the
grant?

> Yes 1
>
> No 2 SKIP TO QUESTION 12

10\. How many of the following types of staff received professional
development by the district under the grant?

**Number of staff**

> a\. District school library coordinator
>
> b\. District reading curriculum coordinator
>
> c\. Principal(s)
>
> d\. School library media specialist(s)
>
> e\. Reading specialist(s)
>
> f\. Classroom teacher(s)
>
> g\. Paraprofessionals/instructional assistant(s)
>
> h\. Other (*please specify*)

*11. How many times per year were the following topics covered in the
professional development activities?* (Circle one response on each
line.)

  --------------------------------------- --------- --------- --------- -----------
                                          **Times                       
                                          per                           
                                          year**                        

                                          **7 or\   **3-6**   **1-2**   **Not
                                          more**                        covered**
  --------------------------------------- --------- --------- --------- -----------

> a\. How to select books and materials that align with the curriculum 1
> 2 3 4
>
> b\. How to integrate educational technology into the curriculum 1 2 3
> 4
>
> c\. Methods in which teachers and school library media specialists can
> collaborate 1 2 3 4
>
> d\. Teaching children to read 1 2 3 4
>
> e\. Other (*please specify*) 1 2 3 4
>
> f\. Other (*please specify*) 1 2 3 4
>
> g\. Other (*please specify*) 1 2 3 4

######## **EXPENDITURES**

12\. How much of your grant money was ultimately spent in each of the
following categories:

> a\. Acquisition of advanced technology \$
>
> b\. Acquisition of all other resources, including books \$
>
> c\. Linkage to the Internet and other resource-sharing networks \$
>
> d\. Professional development \$
>
> e\. Operating the school library media center during nonschool hours
> \$
>
> f\. Other (*please explain*) \$

13\. Who participated in the decision regarding how the money should be
spent? *(Circle one response on each line.)*

**Yes No**

> a\. District school library coordinator 1 2
>
> b\. District reading curriculum coordinator 1 2
>
> c\. Superintendent(s) 1 2
>
> d\. Principal(s) 1 2
>
> e\. School library media specialist(s) 1 2
>
> f\. Reading specialist(s) 1 2
>
> g\. Classroom teacher(s) 1 2
>
> h\. Parent(s) 1 2
>
> i\. Other (*please specify*) 1 2

14\. On what basis was the grant money distributed to the schools in
your district? (*Circle one response*.)

> Each participating school received the same amount 1
>
> Each participating school received an amount based on the\
> number of students in the school 2
>
> All purchasing was done at the district level 3
>
> Other (*please specify*) 4

**STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT DATA IN READING/LANGUAGE ARTS**

15\. For each school served under the grant, please provide your
district name, the school name and CCD #, the name of the assessment,
and in the table below, indicate each grade level or grade span that was
tested in reading/language arts. If you did not test a particular grade
level in a particular year, write NA for the numbers who were assessed
for that year and grade. For both the year prior to the grant and the
year of the grant, please provide the [number]{.underline} of students
who were enrolled, assessed, and whose scores showed they met or
exceeded the proficient level of academic achievement for the assessment
used. For the higher grades, if you do not specifically test in
reading/language arts, please provide the test results for English
instead. NOTE: Please copy these pages as needed, and fill out one page
for each school served under the grant.

District Name: School
Name/CCD#:\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Name of Achievement
Test:\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
| Grade   | Number  |         |         |         |         |         |
| level   | of      |         |         |         |         |         |
|         | S       |         |         |         |         |         |
|         | tudents |         |         |         |         |         |
+=========+=========+=========+=========+=========+=========+=========+
|         | In the  |         |         | In the  |         |         |
|         | year    |         |         | year    |         |         |
|         | **      |         |         | **of    |         |         |
|         | prior** |         |         | the     |         |         |
|         | to the  |         |         | grant** |         |         |
|         | grant   |         |         | who     |         |         |
|         | who     |         |         | were:   |         |         |
|         | were:   |         |         |         |         |         |
+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
|         | E       | A       | Met or  | E       | A       | Met or  |
|         | nrolled | ssessed |         | nrolled | ssessed |         |
|         |         |         | Exceeds |         |         | Exceeds |
|         |         |         | Pro     |         |         | Pro     |
|         |         |         | ficient |         |         | ficient |
+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
| 1.      |         |         |         |         |         |         |
+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
| 2.      |         |         |         |         |         |         |
+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
| 3.      |         |         |         |         |         |         |
+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
| 4.      |         |         |         |         |         |         |
+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
| 5.      |         |         |         |         |         |         |
+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
| 6.      |         |         |         |         |         |         |
+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
| 7.      |         |         |         |         |         |         |
+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
| 8.      |         |         |         |         |         |         |
+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
| 9.      |         |         |         |         |         |         |
+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
| 10.     |         |         |         |         |         |         |
+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
| 11.     |         |         |         |         |         |         |
+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
| 12.     |         |         |         |         |         |         |
+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+

appendix E

case study protocols

School District:

Program Administrator:

Title of Program Administrator:

Site Visitors:

Date:

**EVALUATION OF THE IMPROVING LITERACY THROUGH\
SCHOOL LIBRARIES PROGRAM**

**Program Administrator at the District Level**

My name is \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ and this is
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_. We are visiting your
school district as a part of the Evaluation of the Improving Literacy
Through School Libraries Program (LSL), which is a study required under
the No Child Left Behind legislation. We are examining promising
practices related to the LSL Program that might be adopted by other
school districts. We want to obtain details about the program in your
district, how it has changed over time, problems you ran into during
implementation and how they were resolved, and suggestions for districts
that are considering adopting the program. Districts for our case
studies/site visits were selected through several mechanisms, including
nominations by experts in the field of school libraries, results of a
previous survey of schools participating in the program, and the review
of materials that districts submitted to the U.S. Department of
Education.

Responses to this data collection will be used only for statistical
purposes. The reports prepared for this study will summarize findings
across the sample and will not associate responses with a specific
individual, school, or school district. We will not provide information
that identifies you or your school district to anyone outside the study
team, except as required by law.

Do you have any questions before we begin?

1\. What services are provided as part of the targeted program (e.g.,
working with classroom teachers to select books and other materials that
are aligned with the curriculum, using collaborative teaching by
librarians and teachers, providing professional development, opening the
library for extended hours, providing family literacy activities)?

2\. In how many schools are the services provided? At which level(s)
(elementary/middle/high school) are the services provided? Why was this
level selected? (If not all the schools at this level are served, ask
why not.)

3\. Where are the services provided (e.g., school libraries, regular
classrooms)?

4\. When are the services provided (e.g., during the regular school day,
before school, after school, weekends, summer)?

5\. Who provides the services (e.g., school librarian, classroom
teachers, aides, parent volunteers, other adult volunteers) How many
people for each staffing category?

6\. What qualifications must program staff meet? What qualifications are
preferred but not required (e.g., state-certified library media
specialist, professional staff but not certified as a librarian)?

7\. Were program staff given any special training prior to beginning the
program? If yes, please describe.

8\. What other staff development training has occurred as a part of the
program? (e.g., methods of selecting books and materials that align with
the curriculum, approaches for integrating educational technology into
the curriculum, methods in which teachers and librarians can
collaborate, motivating students to read, providing instruction in
information skills to students, learning how to use online resources)
Who participated?

9\. Who is being served this year by your LSL program (students,
teachers, parents, others)? How many are being served this year (by
category)? How many were served in previous years?

10\. Does the program focus on any particular subject areas? If so,
which ones? Why were these subject areas selected? How are these subject
areas incorporated into professional development?

11\. Does the program focus on specific skills? If yes, which ones?
(e.g., use of advanced technology, information retrieval, critical
thinking skills)

12\. Does the program involve collaboration between school librarians
and other school staff? If yes, please describe.

12\. What equipment is used as a part of the program? What equipment was
purchased as a part of the program (e.g., computer; CD player)? How is
technology used as a part of the program?

14\. What resources are used as part of the program? Which of these
resources were purchased as a part of the program (e.g., number of books
purchased as a part of the program, serial subscriptions, video laser
disc, DVDs, computer software)?

15\. Did school libraries in your district become connected or increase
their connection to other libraries as a part of the program? (e.g.,
other school libraries in your district, school libraries outside your
district, public library, community college library, college or
university library) If yes, please describe. (e.g., computer access via
the Internet or other networks to the catalog of other libraries,
inter-library loans, coordinating regarding student research projects)

16\. What are the goals and objectives of the LSL program in your
district?

17\. Who was involved in establishing the goals and objectives?

18\. How will it be determined that the goals have been met? How did you
decide what criteria to use?

19\. Has the program been evaluated? If yes, describe the evaluation.
What were the results?

20\. Is the program tied to district student test score results? If so,
how?

21\. Why was the program developed?

22\. Was the development of the program based on a needs assessment? If
yes, please describe.

23\. Who was involved in the development and planning of the program?
Are they still involved in the program? If yes, in what ways?

24\. How has the program changed over time? Has it expanded to other
branches or schools? Has the range of services been expanded?

25\. What are the next steps planned for the program? What are the long
range plans?

26\. What problems were encountered in operating the program? How were
they resolved?

27\. What factors would a district need to consider in adopting this
kind of program?

28\. What is the estimated program cost?

29\. What other library and reading programs are provided in your
district (e.g., Title I, Reading First, Early Reading First)? Are these
programs coordinated with the LSL program? If so, how?

30\. Are the federal Comprehensive School Reform program or 21^st^
Century Community Learning Centers program provided in your district? If
yes, are these programs coordinated with the LSL program? If so, how?

31\. How could the LSL program provide more assistance to districts to
improve school libraries?

32\. Verify extant data on the school district.

School District:

School:

Principal:

Site Visitors:

Date:

**EVALUATION OF THE IMPROVING LITERACY THROUGH\
SCHOOL LIBRARIES PROGRAM**

**Principal**

My name is \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ and this is
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_. We are visiting your
school as a part of the Evaluation of the Improving Literacy Through
School Libraries Program (LSL), which is a study required under the No
Child Left Behind legislation. We are examining promising practices
related to the LSL Program that might be adopted by other school
districts. We want to obtain details about the program in your district,
how it has changed over time, problems you ran into during
implementation and how they were resolved, and suggestions for districts
that are considering adopting the program. Districts for our case
studies/site visits were selected through several mechanisms, including
nominations by experts in the field of school libraries, results of a
previous survey of schools participating in the program, and the review
of materials that districts submitted to the U.S. Department of
Education.

Responses to this data collection will be used only for statistical
purposes. The reports prepared for this study will summarize findings
across the sample and will not associate responses with a specific
individual or school. We will not provide information that identifies
you or your school to anyone outside the study team, except as required
by law.

Do you have any questions before we begin?

1\. How have you been involved in the development of the program? How
have you been involved in implementing program activities?

2\. How does the program meet the needs of the school? Teachers?
Students? Others?

3\. Why was the program developed?

4\. What resources have been provided for the program beyond those
covered in the grant? (e.g., security guard at the front door of the
school so the library can stay open for extended hours, scheduled
meeting times for classroom teachers and the librarian, snacks for
family literacy nights, finding parent volunteers to work with the
program)

5\. What problems were encountered in operating the program? How were
they resolved?

6\. What are the next steps planned for the program?

7\. What recommendations would you make to a school that is considering
the adoption of the program?

8\. What other library, reading, or reform programs are operating in
your school (e.g., Title I, Reading First, Comprehensive School Reform,
21^st^ Century Community Learning Centers)? How are these programs
coordinated with the LSL program?

9\. How have the students in your school performed on reading/language
arts portion of the state assessments? (For each grade served by the LSL
Program, try to obtain the scores for the past 3 years.)

10\. Have you had any difficulty staffing the library? If yes, please
describe. How was the situation resolved? To what extent are parent
volunteers involved in the school library? In what capacity are the
parent volunteers involved?

11\. How could the LSL program provide more assistance to schools to
improve school libraries?

12\. Verify extant data on the school

School District:

School:

School Librarian:

Site Visitors:

Date:

**EVALUATION OF THE IMPROVING LITERACY THROUGH\
SCHOOL LIBRARIES PROGRAM**

**School Librarian**

My name is \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ and this is
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_. We are visiting your
school as a part of the Evaluation of the Improving Literacy Through
School Libraries Program (LSL), which is a study required under the No
Child Left Behind legislation. We are examining promising practices
related to the LSL Program that might be adopted by other school
districts. We want to obtain details about the program in your district,
how it has changed over time, problems you ran into during
implementation and how they were resolved, and suggestions for districts
that are considering adopting the program. Districts for our case
studies/site visits were selected through several mechanisms, including
nominations by experts in the field of school libraries, results of a
previous survey of schools participating in the program, and the review
of materials that districts submitted to the U.S. Department of
Education.

Responses to this data collection will be used only for statistical
purposes. The reports prepared for this study will summarize findings
across the sample and will not associate responses with a specific
individual or school. We will not provide information that identifies
you or your school to anyone outside the study team, except as required
by law.

Do you have any questions before we begin?

1\. What services do you provide as part of the targeted program (e.g.,
working with classroom teachers to select books and other materials that
are aligned with the curriculum, collaborative teaching by librarians
and teachers, professional development, open the library for extended
hours, family literacy activities)?

2\. Do you focus on any particular subject areas? If so, which ones?

3\. Do you focus on specific skills? If yes, which ones?

4\. What percentage of your time is spent on this program?

5\. Where are the services provided (e.g., school library, classrooms)?

6\. When are services provided (e.g., during school hours, before
school, after school, summer)?

7\. Who received the services (e.g., students, classroom teachers,
parents, library aides)?

8\. Were you given any special training prior to beginning the program?
If yes, please describe.

9\. What other staff development training has occurred as a part of the
program? (e.g., methods of selecting books and materials that align with
the curriculum, approaches for integrating educational technology into
the curriculum, methods in which teachers and librarians can
collaborate, motivating students to read, providing instruction in
information skills to students, learning how to use online resources)
What staff were involved?

10\. How do you work with classroom teachers as a part of the program?

11\. Do you work with other school staff as a part of the program?
Please explain.

12\. Do you work with parents as a part of the program? Please explain.

13\. What equipment/technology is used as part of the program (e.g.,
computer; CD player)? How is the equipment/technology used as a part of
the program?

14\. What resources are used as part of the program (e.g., number of
books purchased as a part of the program, serial subscriptions, video
laser disc, DVDs, computer software)? How were they selected?

15\. Did your school library become connected or increase its connection
to other libraries as a part of the program? (e.g., other school
libraries in your district, school libraries outside your district,
public library, community college library, college or university
library) If yes, please describe. (e.g., computer access via the
Internet or other networks to the catalog of other libraries,
inter-library loans, coordinating regarding student research projects)

16\. How were you involved in the development and planning of the
program? What other groups were involved? In what way?

17\. How do you continue to provide input into the program?

18\. How has the program changed over time? Has the range of services
been expanded?

19\. What are the next steps planned for the program?

20\. What problems were encountered in operating the program? How were
they resolved?

21\. What has been achieved as a result of the program? How has the
program benefited students?

22\. What factors would a school need to consider in adopting this kind
of program?

23\. What other library or reading programs are provided in your school?
How are the activities of the LSL program coordinated with the
activities of these other programs?

24\. How could the LSL program provide more assistance to schools to
improve school libraries?

25\. What is your educational background (e.g., degrees held, area of
degree such as library science, type of certification)?

School district:

School:

Teacher:

Site Visitors:

Date:

**EVALUATION OF THE IMPROVING LITERACY THROUGH\
SCHOOL LIBRARIES PROGRAM**

**Classroom Teacher**

My name is \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ and this is
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_. We are visiting your
school as a part of the Evaluation of the Improving Literacy Through
School Libraries Program (LSL), which is a study required under the No
Child Left Behind legislation. We are examining promising practices
related to the LSL Program that might be adopted by other school
districts. We want to obtain details about the program in your district,
how it has changed over time, problems you ran into during
implementation and how they were resolved, and suggestions for districts
that are considering adopting the program. Districts for our case
studies/site visits were selected through several mechanisms, including
nominations by experts in the field of school libraries, results of a
previous survey of schools participating in the program, and the review
of materials that districts submitted to the U.S. Department of
Education.

Responses to this data collection will be used only for statistical
purposes. The reports prepared for this study will summarize findings
across the sample and will not associate responses with a specific
individual or school. We will not provide information that identifies
you or your school to anyone outside the study team, except as required
by law.

Do you have any questions before we begin?

1\. What subject(s) do you teach?

2\. Do you work with the school librarian to select and evaluate library
resources? If so, please describe. How are the materials connected to
the curriculum?

3\. How often do you meet with the school librarian?

4\. Do you work with the librarian in curriculum development? If so,
please describe. In what subject areas do you work together?

5\. Do you teach any curriculum units collaboratively with the
librarian? If so, please describe. What was the subject area of the
curriculum unit? What was the specific topic of the unit? What were your
respective roles when teaching these units?

6\. Do you work with the school librarian in selecting technology for
the library (e.g., computers, DVD players)? If yes, please describe?

7\. Do you work with the school librarian regarding the use of advanced
technology? If yes, please describe. In what ways are classroom teachers
using the technology? How are students using the technology?

8\. Do you work with the librarian regarding specific skills such as
information retrieval or critical thinking skills? If yes, please
describe.

9\. How have your students benefited from these activities? Do
particular students benefit more than others?

10\. Have the types of activities you have done with the librarian
changed over time? If yes, how have they changed? Why have they changed?

11\. Have you had any training in connection with the kinds of
activities you are doing with the librarian? If yes, please explain.

12\. What problems have you encountered? How were they resolved?

13\. What advice would you give to another teacher who is considering
becoming involved in such a program?

14\. How could the LSL program provide more assistance to schools to
improve school libraries?

School District:

School:

Site Visitors:

Date:

Length of Observation:

**EVALUATION OF THE IMPROVING LITERACY THROUGH\
SCHOOL LIBRARIES PROGRAM**

**Observation Form**

1\. Where did the activity take place (e.g., classroom, school library)?

-    Classroom

-    School library

-    Other (*please describe*)

2\. When did the activity take place?

-    During the school day

-    Before school

-    After school

-    During the evening

3\. Who was involved in the activity? How many people in each category?

-    Librarians

-    Library aides

-    Classroom teachers

-    Students

-    Parents

-    Other (*please describe*)

4\. What types of materials were used (e.g., books, DVDs, computer
software)?

5\. What types of equipment were used (e.g., computer, DVD player,
automated circulation system)?

6\. Describe the activity.

-   a\. What were the adults doing (e.g., reading to students, providing
    instruction on searching for information on the internet)?

-   

-   

-   b\. What were the students doing (e.g., selecting books and other
    materials for a report, talking to each other about something they
    had read)?

-   

-   

-   c\. How were the students grouped (e.g., whole group, small groups,
    one-to-one instruction)?

-   

-   

-   d\. Extent to which students and others were engaged in the
    activity?

-   

-   

7\. Overall impression of the activity

appendix F

**CASE STUDY SUMMARIES**

**Site A**

Site A is a rural district in the north central part of the U.S.
Altogether, 35 percent of the 800 students are from families with
incomes below the poverty line. The racial composition of the community
is 69 percent white, 22 percent black, and 7 percent two or more races.
In 2000, for residents aged 25 and older, 65 percent had earned a high
school diploma or GED compared with 83 percent in the state. Most of the
students have not traveled outside of their little community.

The district's three schools (elementary, middle and high) are all
located on the same campus in different buildings. The elementary and
middle schools were the focus of the LSL grant, and both met adequately
yearly progress (AYP)[^22] in the state's accountability system in
2004--05 as did the district as a whole. One school library media center
serves the elementary school and a separate library serves both the
junior and senior high schools. The libraries share one professional,
state-certified school librarian and one paraprofessional.

Site A received an LSL grant for the 2005--06 school year. One goal of
the grant was to work collaboratively with teachers and administrators
to update the library collections to help support the state curriculum.
In addition to involving the teachers and administrators in the needs
assessment to help identify gaps in the library collection, the
librarian asked the students about the kinds of books that would
interest them. Consequently, according to the librarian, both the
teachers and students feel they have an investment in using the library
and the materials they helped select. This has contributed to helping
motivate students to read.

The LSL grant enabled the schools to purchase a substantial amount of
resources. In consultation with the other members of the library
advisory committee, the librarian devoted a significant amount of time
to research and select materials and equipment that were appropriate and
of high quality. Resources on generational poverty and student learning
were consulted during this process. In the year after the grant, more
students and teachers were using the library.

Another program goal was to introduce flexible library scheduling and
collaborative teaching. The school librarian began with two teachers to
demonstrate how it works. The practice was successful in teaching
specific units (e.g., how to write a research paper and biographies of
famous scientists, which were both conducted with the eighth-grade
science teacher, as well as regions and continents, animal kingdom, and
plants, conducted with the third-grade teacher). Subsequently, two more
teachers have requested that the librarian work collaboratively with
them in their English classes.

Site B

Site B is a small Southern town in which 26 percent of the 3,100
students are from families with incomes below the poverty line. The
community is 80 percent white and 15 percent black. All four of the
district's schools participated in the LSL grant, which was received in
2005. In 2005--06, the district and all schools in the grant met AYP. In
addition, the high school won an award for improvement on the statewide
test.

During the grant year, the state was in the process of revising
standards in English language arts, science, and social studies. Some
materials purchased with LSL grant money were selected with the
standards in mind. For example, a new standard involves acquiring
knowledge of state authors and significant text created by them.
Therefore, some biographies were purchased. Also, the primary school
(grades pre-K--2) does not have textbooks for science or social studies.
Under the LSL grant, the library purchased six-packs of books that cover
the science and social studies standards and are used in guided reading
lessons. The high school also targeted science and social as areas
needing updating.

The district has two literacy coaches that were originally funded under
a Reading Excellence Act grant. Each Friday, the coaches select the
books that will be used in guided reading sessions in grades 1--3 in the
following week. Each class receives six copies each of five books per
week. With the purchase of additional materials under the LSL grant,
this program was able to expand.

Also benefiting from additional LSL-funded materials was the book bag
program for 400 at-risk primary and elementary students. Each student is
given a set of books in a resealable plastic bag to take home and read.
The books are matched to the students' reading levels. The school tries
to provide a new set of books on the same day that a student returns
one. Assistance with this program is provided by 18 VISTA volunteers.

More than 12,000 books, an average of four books per student, were
purchased with grant money. Two paraprofessionals were hired for the
year to help with processing the new books.

Older students mentor younger ones in several district programs.
Students enrolled in an Introduction to Teaching class at the high
school were trained by the elementary literacy coaches to conduct guided
reading sessions with students at the primary and elementary schools.
The high school interns also provided one-on-one assistance with
students as directed by the classroom teacher. Approximately 60 high
school students visited individual classrooms to read aloud to large
groups and discuss their reading selections.

Forty high school students performed Reader's Theaters for approximately
240 primary school students. The materials for this activity were
multiple copies of plays written on the second-grade level. Each high
school student read a part in the play, and one or two students served
as narrators. The younger students were very attentive during the play,
which they could read on their own at a later date. The plays were
selected by the primary school's media specialist and purchased with LSL
funds.

Site C

Site C is a mid--size city in the south central part of the United
States with a poverty rate of 27 percent. The district has 44,500
students; the community is 56 percent black and 42 percent white. The
district has 75 schools, but the LSL grant focused on the 11 high
schools. In 2003--04, the year of the grant, the district made AYP in
English language arts in all categories except students with
disabilities.

Improving reading literacy through the curricular area of science was
the focus of Site C's LSL grant, and the high school science supervisor
served as the co-project director. The district had done similar
projects with the English and social studies departments in the past.
Science was chosen for the LSL grant in part because the high school
science supervisor was responsive and available.

The program used a commercial reading motivation program for students
with little interest in reading. It began with a short test that
provided each student's reading ability range. Some of the students were
surprised at how low they scored. Others scored higher than might be
expected based on their grades. Students then read books and answered
questions about them. The more difficult the book, the more points they
received. A posttest was also done. Understanding the reading levels of
the students has helped teachers tailor their lessons to student needs.

One project activity involved having students read both nonfiction
materials and a fiction book on a particular topic and compare them.
Teachers used these materials to demonstrate how science concepts are
used properly and improperly and to help students assess whether the
source of their information is reliable and reputable. Use of science
fiction books has helped motivate students to read more. For example,
students picked a disease, which they researched. To find a work of
fiction that included the disease, the librarians and teachers used
Novelist, a database of novels that can be searched by subject area.
Also as part of the project, teachers used poetry with a scientific
theme and biographies of scientists.

Another grant purchase was a magazine subscription service and database
that contain full-text magazine articles, including medical articles.
The science teachers had not known about the database and were pleased
to be able to access current information.

Since completion of the grant, some science teachers have embraced the
opportunity to collaborate with the librarians, and they have
incorporated this new professional relationship into their routines.
Teachers who had only worked with librarians sporadically before the
grant now see the benefits of such collaboration.

Site D

Site D is a cooperative[^23] of 30 districts in the north central region
of the United States, but only three rural districts were eligible for
and participated in the LSL grant. The combined student population of
the participating districts is 1,200, and the community is 97 percent
white. The poverty rate of the largest participating district is 29
percent. Typically, there is one elementary, middle and high school in
each district, and one librarian supports them all. In 2005--06, the
three districts and all eight schools in those districts met AYP.

The consortium received two LSL grants, for the 2004--05 and 2005--06
school years; the first grant focused on grades K--2 and the second, on
grades 3--5. Collaboration between the librarians and classroom teachers
was a component of the grant. One mechanism used for fostering
collaboration was having the librarians and teachers attend professional
development programs together to see where they could collaborate.
Subsequently, librarians have co-taught research units and genre
studies.

Other professional development was done as a part of the LSL grant in
Site D, sometimes in collaboration with Title I programs. Topics
included how to select materials for particular grade levels and how to
use personal digital assistants (PDAs). Librarians learned about general
reading strategies, how to teach guided reading, and specific reading
skills to be taught at each grade level.

Site E

Site E is a cooperative of 22 rural school districts in the northeastern
part of the United States, only six of which met the poverty criterion
for the LSL program. Combined, the six districts serve 5,100 students in
14 schools. The population is 98 percent white, and the poverty level of
the lead district is 29 percent. The grant focused on six elementary
schools, all of which met AYP in English language arts in 2004--05, the
year of the LSL grant. These schools are widely dispersed with some
being as much as 100 miles apart.

One goal of the LSL program was to enable students in schools that are
far apart to do joint projects. This was achieved by acquiring advanced
technology. In addition, each library media specialist held a
professional development day to demonstrate the equipment to classroom
teachers. Projects that have been done with the equipment include book
studies and virtual field trips.

Site E built onto a previous project in which broadband connection,
distance learning labs, and library/classroom audiovisual conferencing
had already been established. The following equipment was purchased
under the LSL grant:

-   Six computers for each library---which were needed to make all the
    other connections.

-   Cart-mounted videoconferencing units with large screen monitors,
    camera, microphone, cabinet and VCR---connected to each school
    district's individual Ethernet networks. They were configured to
    communicate with each of the distance learning labs to enable
    audiovideo conferencing among libraries, the labs and classrooms.
    Remote access provides communication with any other
    Internet-accessible videoconferencing site.

-   Multipoint IP codecs---necessary to complete the connectivity and
    compatibility of the project.

-   Videoconferencing cameras---mounted on library computers and made
    the connection with partner distance learning networks to enable
    desktop videoconferencing.

A variety of software programs were also purchased under the grant.
These included interactive books that can read words from the pages to
the reader when the word is touched with a stylus. Drawings in the
background are also interactive when touched with the stylus.

Site F

Site F is in a community that is 99 percent Hispanic and is located on
the fringe of a midsize city along the U.S.-Mexican border. The district
serves 3,200 students, 52 percent of whom are from families with incomes
below the poverty line. In 2005, the year of the grant, all seven
schools in the district met AYP in English language arts. Percentage of
all schools participated in the grant.

About 55 percent of the students are English language learners. Some of
the students are recent immigrants, and some had never been to school
before. The district has a dual-language program, which is designed to
help all participating students become fluent in both English and
Spanish. These factors were taken into account in determining how to use
grant money.

In addition, a majority of the parents are first-generation Americans,
have limited English proficiency, and come from cultures in which
parents do not generally participate in the education process. Family
literacy kits were purchased for each school so parents could improve
their literacy skills along with their children. A two-day program was
provided for parents to give them an overview of library resources,
demonstrate how to obtain Internet access, and provide suggestions for
reading to their children.

The foundation of the program was a needs assessment, which was done
with the assistance of a consultant. It brought together teachers,
librarians, principals and administrators in an open dialog about what
was most essential for the district's students. Each school received
resources based on its enrollment and the needs of its student
population.

During the first month of the LSL project, each school also established
a literacy committee and a professional development team. Literacy
committee membership included an administrator; librarian; library aide;
and reading, bilingual and special education teachers. The committees
determined how the library needs would be addressed by obtaining input
from classroom teachers and deciding which books to order and which to
remove.

The professional development teams worked with other committees to
identify training needs, particularly since the libraries had acquired
additional updated materials and resources. For example, both classroom
teachers and librarians were trained on software and database usage. At
the elementary level, the professional development teams included one
teacher from each grade level, the librarian, library aide and one
special education teacher. At the high school level, one representative
from each content area also was included on the teams. School principals
participated as honorary members.

Additionally, librarians are represented on the curriculum development
committees of each school. They attend meetings where they learn what
lessons are planned for the upcoming weeks and can talk to teachers
about library resources available to support their classes.

Before the grant, the district purchased an estimated 1,900 new books
per year and used five databases. During the grant year, 12,400 new
books were purchased and 16 databases were available for use. Additional
purchases included 120 audio books, 22 serial subscriptions, and one
laptop and data projector per library. Many of the new books and
materials are designed to encourage independent reading and come with
tests and quizzes that are aligned with state standards. Since
completion of the grant, some teachers are assigning more research
projects because the libraries have more resources to offer.

Site G

Site G is a rural district in the north central area of the United
States; its community is 98 percent white. The 200 students are served
in three schools (one elementary, one middle and one high school), which
are housed in separate areas of the same building. There are two
libraries, one for the elementary school and one for the middle and high
schools. Percentage of all schools participated in the grant and met AYP
in 2005--06, the year of the LSL grant. Although the district met the 20
percent poverty rate needed to qualify for an LSL grant during the grant
year, the current poverty rate of 17 percent means that the district no
longer qualifies.

One grant activity was the development of a Young Authors Program to
foster interest in reading as well as writing skills and creativity. All
students in the elementary and middle schools participated in the
program, which was done collaboratively by classroom teachers and the
librarian. First, students learned about writing books. Then, each
student wrote his or her own book and illustrated it using either
hand-drawn pictures or computer-assisted pictures such as clip art and
scanned photographs. Older students used PowerPoint for their entire
book. At the end of the school year, all students' work was displayed in
an open public setting as part of a Young Authors Festival. Staff
members had wanted to participate in the Young Authors Program for some
time but did not have the resources to do so until they received the LSL
grant.

Updating the library collections was one of the primary goals of the LSL
program. During a needs assessment of the collections, staff members
learned that 63 percent of their books had a copyright year before 1990.
Current nonfiction books and materials were particularly needed. Under
the grant, staff members got rid of almost 10 percent of the collection
and added about 1,900 new books. The weeding and ordering process took
at least five months. The librarian consulted with classroom teachers
about which books and other materials to purchase. This process has
increased the collaboration between teachers and librarians on a variety
of activities including lesson planning and teaching information and
research skills. In addition, circulation has increased more than 20
percent since receipt of the LSL grant.

Finding time for collaboration was a challenge at first. The teachers
did not want to miss instructional time and preferred not to use
substitutes to cover their classes. Ultimately, staff members donated
their personal and planning time. The collaboration established under
the grant has been continued beyond the grant year and, in some cases,
has strengthened with time. The initial goal was to have eight
collaborative projects, but the district exceeded this goal by having
11.

Site H

Site H is a rural district in an Eastern state; the community is 98
percent white. Altogether, 26 percent of the 10,500 students live in
families with incomes below the poverty line. The district has 26
schools, but the LSL grant focused on the 15 elementary schools, 11 of
which met AYP in 2004--05, the year of the grant.

One district used several approaches to determine needs, including
reviewing student test score data, interviewing teachers, assessing
library circulation rates and reviewing inventories to find possible
gaps in the resources. They found that 60 percent of the library
collection had an average copyright date before 1993 and approximately
50 percent was in poor condition. Gaps identified included books for
nonreaders and emergent readers as well as science and social studies
resources.

An early reading workstation was purchased for each school under the
grant. For the workstation program, each school targeted 10 students who
were nonreaders but were not considered to be special education
students. Each student received 15--20 minutes of time with the program
each day. Before beginning the program, students were given a placement
test to determine where they would need to begin. Initially, tutors, who
also serve as classroom aides, worked with the students, but once the
students were familiar with the program, they could be self-directed.
The program allowed students to work at their own pace and progress to
the next level only when they had mastered the current one. Tutors could
intervene if students were not progressing as quickly as expected.
Altogether, 90 percent of the students participating in this early
reading program attained grade-level reading. For some students, this
achievement represented an increase of two grade levels.

Before choosing this early reading program, the district reviewed
research on many different programs. One school already had the
workstation in each classroom and its reading scores were some of the
highest in the state. Consequently, it was decided to expand the
program. Since completion of the grants, several schools are considering
purchasing additional workstations because they have seen the benefits
and would like to serve more students.

As part of the LSL grant, each school library was open approximately 2.5
hours per week for extended hours either before or after school. During
these extended hours, some students conducted research using the
resources available to help them to complete classroom assignments or
meet their own interests. Others received additional instruction on the
workstation. Also, many parents were recruited to be reading volunteers,
who either read to the students or had the students read to them.
However, extended hours benefit students who are driven to school more
than those who rely on the bus.

Once a month, each library was open for four hours in the evening for
family reading night; this activity has been done two or three times a
semester since completion of the grant. For approximately 20 hours in
the summer, the libraries were open for Camp Read-a-Lot, with planned
activities targeting low-achieving and emergent readers.

Site I

Site I is a small Eastern town with 3,700 students, 23 percent of whom
are from families with incomes below the poverty line. The community
population is 85 percent white, 8 percent black, and 4 percent two or
more races. All seven schools met AYP in 2005--06, the year after the
grant. The LSL grant focused on the two middle schools.

An experienced librarian who was new to the district provided the
impetus to apply for an LSL grant. She arrived to an outdated library
with four computers, a magazine collection beginning in the 1970s, and a
science book that said, "Some day man may go to the moon." Under the
grant, outdated books were removed, and each school added more than
3,000 books as well as audio books and educational DVDs. To promote
interest in some of the new books, the librarians have held "book
talks," aired live to all students during morning announcements. By the
end of the talk, students are often already in the library to check out
the book.

Twelve desktop, Internet-connected computers for use by students and
teachers were installed as part of the LSL grant. Additional computers
have been purchased since completion of the grant. Each library now has
about 25 Internet-connected units, so an entire class can work on them
at the same time.

Also under the grant, the middle school card catalogs were put online
and links were established to the local public library and the state
university library. Interactive white-boards enhanced by LCD projectors
have changed large-group presentations by the librarians to
student-interactive experiences. A software program that provides
individualized tutoring to students with reading difficulties also was
purchased.

Librarians and classroom teachers received professional development in
an in formation problem-solving model as part of the LSL grant. It was
observed in action during the site visit. First, an eighth-grade science
teacher asked the class to write a question they wanted to answer. Then
they went to the library to find the answer, using a minimum of three
sources including at least one Internet source. The librarian and
classroom teacher helped students who were having difficulty. In another
class, the students were to write a summary of what they had learned.

![](media/image52.png){width="8.565972222222221in" height="11.125in"}

[^1]: In the rest of the report, the term *district* will be used rather
    than LEA because most grant recipients are public school districts.

[^2]: The district characteristics used for matching were region,
    district poverty status, school district type, urbanicity, and
    district enrollment size. The school-level characteristics included
    instructional level, school type, enrollment size, type of locale,
    percentage of students belonging to racial/ethnic minorities, and
    the percentage receiving free lunches. The comparison sample was not
    matched on prior achievement, which was not available at the time of
    sampling.

[^3]: Additional limitations to the analysis of student reading
    achievement are presented in Chapter 5.

[^4]: In the rest of the report, the term *district* will be used rather
    than LEA because most grant recipients are public school districts.

[^5]: The comparison sample was not matched on prior achievement, which
    was not available at the time of sampling.

[^6]: Adequate yearly progress is an individual state's measure of
    progress toward the goal of 100 percent of students achieving
    proficiency on state academic standards by 2014 in at least
    reading/language arts and math. It sets the minimum level of
    proficiency that the state, its school districts, and schools must
    achieve each year on annual tests and related academic indicators.

[^7]: Section 1251(f)(2)(A) of the *ESEA.*

[^8]: Among the grantees, 35 percent offered access for the first time
    during nonschool hours in 2006, but 2 percent stopped offering
    access that they offered in 2005. Thus, the net change was
    33 percent.

[^9]: The LSL legislation also contains a "supplement, not supplant"
    restriction, which means (a) that the LSL funding cannot be used to
    pay for staff members to do activities that were done before the
    grant was awarded and (b) that LSL funding cannot be used to pay for
    staff if there is existing funding for staff.

[^10]: Section 1251(g)(4) of the *ESEA.*

[^11]: Grantee districts can apply again for funding to serve grade
    levels or schools not served by current or prior funding. All
    grantee districts still have to meet the eligibility requirements.

[^12]: For example, if both grades 3 and 4 were tested, the number
    taking the test in grade 3 was multiplied by the percentage who were
    proficient, and the number taking the test in grade 4 was multiplied
    by the percentage who were proficient. Then the total of those two
    numbers was divided by the total number in grades 3 and 4 to get a
    single percentage for all grades that were tested.

[^13]: Ideally, one would use 2002--03 tests scores to measure such
    baseline differences, but by definition they are unavailable.
    However, typically, test scores at the school level change little
    from one year to another; thus, the 2003--04 test scores serve not
    only as a partial surrogate but also as the actual baseline used in
    some of the analyses in this report.

[^14]: In such situations, one could use the analogous approach of
    examining the percentage of students who exceed the standards (e.g.,
    those who reach the next proficiency level, which typically is
    labeled "advanced"). This presumably would help to increase the
    amount of variation and thus increase one's ability to measure
    differences over time and across schools. However, the data then may
    not be as directly comparable across states; *proficiency* can be
    considered as a type of benchmark, while *advanced* is more
    difficult to interpret (a) because it is not given the same policy
    importance and (b) because the definition may vary across the
    states. As an analogy, graduation requirements differ across schools
    and states but still are a benchmark; thus, it is meaningful to
    identify a person as a high school graduate or a college graduate as
    well as to examine a school in terms of the percentage of students
    who graduate. It is more difficult to interpret the percentage who
    exceeded graduation requirements unless one knows what requirements
    were exceeded and by how much.

[^15]: As noted, there is a possibility that schools could start at such
    high levels of proficiency that they have little room for
    improvement (based on that particular measure). Similarly, it is
    possible that it is easier to produce changes in proficiency levels
    at some schools than at others (e.g., if some schools have a larger
    proportion of students who need only small improvements to reach
    proficiency). Regression to the mean could occasionally be a factor
    (e.g., if some districts direct grants to those schools with the
    lowest proficiency levels), though regression to the mean should be
    less of a factor when working with schoolwide averages than when
    working with individual student test scores. Regression to the mean
    is most an issue when students are selected because of their low (or
    high) scores. In such cases, some of the students are likely to have
    low (or high) scores because of measurement error and very different
    scores when they are tested again. Schoolwide means should be much
    more stable, and in fact, typically should vary only slightly from
    year to year. Also, schools are not being targeted in the research
    because of their low scores; it is true that some districts target
    schools with the lowest scores, but even that targeting may often be
    based on long-term trends rather than on chance fluctuations. On
    balance, the directing of LSL grants to disadvantaged districts and
    schools as well as the selection of comparison schools that were
    also in disadvantaged districts helps to lessen the chances either
    that schools would have little room for improvement or that grantees
    would have greatly different opportunities for improvement from
    nongrantees because of differences in their starting levels of
    proficiency.

[^16]: These two school years are not the only possibilities. It also is
    possible that it may take several years for an LSL grant to show its
    full influence, in which case measuring change ending in 2004--05
    may understate the ultimate influence of the grant. In later years,
    when additional test score data become available, it may be
    desirable to reexamine the association of the grants with student
    literacy, using a longer timeframe.

[^17]: These particular measures were chosen (a) because they reflect
    major emphases of the LSL program, (b) because the survey data
    suggest they were influenced by the program, and (c) because they
    could be measured with a fairly high level of precision. Another
    emphasis of the LSL program is on increased collaboration, but the
    amount of increase in collaboration is much more difficult to
    measure and is often more subjective. This study did examine some
    potential measures of collaboration and found no significant
    association between these measures and improvement in student test
    scores. It is difficult to attach any meaning to the lack of
    statistically significant findings, however, because of the weakness
    of the measures that were used.

[^18]: An alternative approach would to add another dummy variable to
    the model that is 1 when the school is an LSL-grantee and the school
    has data for 2002--03 and 0 otherwise. This would allow one to
    separately measure the LSL-related increases in 2003--04 and
    2004--05. If the number of cases were larger, such an approach might
    be useful, but with the current number of cases, this approaches
    makes both LSL coefficients statistically insignificant. Thus,
    Exhibit 5-2 instead uses an overall measure of LSL-related change
    even though this statistic reflects an average across two years.

[^19]: An analysis of the residuals identified a few schools with
    exceptionally high changes in test scores. These exceptionally large
    changes seem likely to be the result of changes having nothing to do
    with school libraries, for example, changes in the school boundaries
    (and thus in the student populations served). Deleting 16
    observations with changes greater than 25 percentage points produced
    statistical findings that were roughly similar to those shown here.
    The coefficient for LSL grantee did become statistically
    insignificant at the 0.05 level (*p* value = 0.052) in model 1 when
    using 2003--04 as the baseline, but remained significant using the
    other two approaches (*p* value = 0.018 using 2002--03 and *p* value
    = 0.012 using the combination). It was significant in model 1a for
    all three approaches (p-value=0.034, 0.013, and 0.011,
    respectively). In model 1b, it was insignificant when using 2003--04
    data (*p* value = 0.298), significant at the 0.05 level when using
    2002--03 data (*p* value = 0.038), and significant at the 0.10 level
    when using a combination of 2002--03 and 2003--04 data (*p* value =
    0.066). Although LSL participation reached the 0.05 level of
    statistical significance when using 2002--03 data, the measure for
    Title I itself was not statistically significant (*p* value =
    0.077), leaving some doubt about whether Title I belonged in the
    model. The values for an increase in the number of books per student
    (model 2b) remain statistically significant when using the first and
    third approaches (*p* value = 0.024 and 0.014, respectively) and
    insignificant when using only 2002--03 data (*p* value = 0.424).

[^20]: It is also possible to argue that school libraries have more
    influence at advantaged schools because the students at such schools
    are better equipped to use the resources and services that the
    libraries offer. The point here is simply that one should be wary of
    extrapolating these findings to different types of schools.

[^21]: AYP is an individual state's measure of progress toward the goal
    of 100 percent of students achieving to state academic standards in
    at least reading/language arts and math. It sets the minimum level
    of proficiency that the state, its school districts and schools must
    achieve each year on annual tests and related academic indicators.

[^22]: ^1^ AYP is an individual state's measure of progress toward the
    goal of 100 percent of students achieving to state academic
    standards in at least reading/language arts and math. It sets the
    minimum level of proficiency that the state, its school districts
    and schools must achieve each year on annual tests and related
    academic indicators.

[^23]: A cooperative is a voluntary association of school districts who
    work together across a geographic area to provide educational
    services more economically than any district could offer by itself.