Evaluation of the 

Improving Literacy Through 

School Libraries Program 

Final Report 

By 

Joan S. Michie 

Bradford W. Chaney 

Westat 

Rockville, Md. 

Prepared for: 

U.S. Department of Education 

Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development 

Policy and Program Studies Service 

2005 
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 

Tom Luce 

Assistant Secretary

Policy and Program Studies Service 

Alan L. Ginsburg 

Director

Program and Analytic Studies Division 

David Goodwin 

Director 

November 2005 

This report is in the public domain, except for the photograph on the front cover, which is used with permission and 

copyright, 2005, Getty Images. Authorization to produce it in whole or in part is granted. Although permission to reprint 

this publication is not necessary, the citation should be: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Planning, Evaluation 

and Policy Development, Policy and Program Studies Service, Evaluation of the Improving Literacy Through School 

Libraries Program: Final Report, Washington, D.C., 2005. 

To order copies of this report, write: 

ED Pubs 

Education Publications Center 

U. S. Department of Education 

P. O. Box 1398 

Jessup, MD 20794-1398; 

via fax, dial (301) 470-1244; 

You may also call toll-free: 1-877-433-7827 (1-877-4-ED-PUBS). If 877 service is not yet 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: www.edpubs.org. 

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, audiotape, or computer 

diskette. For more information, please contact the Department’s Alternate Format Center at (202) 260-9895 or (202) 205-

8113. 
 iii 

CONTENTS 

Exhibits............................................................................................................................................. Iv

Executive Summary ......................................................................................................................... Xi

1. Introduction................................................................................................................................. 1 

 Characteristics of the Improving Literacy through School Libraries Program ........................ 1 

 Overview of the Evaluation ..................................................................................................... 3 

2. Research On School Libraries and Literacy ............................................................................ 7 

 General Evidence of the Association of School Libraries with Student Test Scores............... 7 

 Characteristics of School Libraries That Are Associated with Higher Student Test Scores.... 8 

3. How the Program Is Implemented ............................................................................................ 11 

 How Districts Receiving Grants Allocate Program Funds to Schools..................................... 11 

 Other Outside Support for Literacy and Libraries.................................................................... 13 

 How Schools Allocate Library Funds ...................................................................................... 15 

4. School-Level Changes Associated with the Program............................................................... 19 

 Needs Assessment.................................................................................................................... 19 

 Resources ................................................................................................................................. 21 

 Involvement of Students .......................................................................................................... 29 

 Services Offered....................................................................................................................... 32 

 Staffing of School Libraries ..................................................................................................... 34 

 Professional Development Related to School Libraries........................................................... 34 

 Collaboration with Teachers .................................................................................................... 36 

 Libraries That Received Grants for Two Years ....................................................................... 37 

5. Conclusions.................................................................................................................................. 41 

 2003 Baseline Information....................................................................................................... 41 

 Changes After Receipt of the Grants........................................................................................ 42

 Evaluation Questions ............................................................................................................... 43 

References......................................................................................................................................... 45 

APPENDICES 

Appendix 

A Detailed Tables....................................................................................................................... A-1 

B Methodology ........................................................................................................................... B-1

C School Library Questionnaire............................................................................................... C-1 

D District Performance Report................................................................................................. D-1 
 iv 

EXHIBITS 

Exhibit 

E-1 Improving Literacy through School Libraries Program grant awards: 2002–05 ................. xi 

E-2 Changes from 2003 to 2004 in the time that school libraries were open during the 

summer, by grantee status..................................................................................................... xiii 

E-3 Changes from 2003 to 2004 in the time that school libraries were open during a typical 

full week, by grantee status................................................................................................... xiii 

E-4 Percent of school libraries providing new or expanded programs in 2003–04 compared 

to 2002–03, by grantee status................................................................................................ xiv 

E-5 Mean grantee and nongrantee school library total expenditures for all materials, 

computer hardware, and audiovisual equipment for the 2002–03 and 2003–04 school 

years...................................................................................................................................... xiv 

1 Improving Literacy through School Libraries Program grant awards: 2002–05 ................. 2 

2 Percent distribution of participating schools in grantee districts, all schools in all 

eligible districts, and all US schools, by school characteristics: 2003–04 school year........ 4 

3 Library services and characteristics and the states in which they were found to have a 

positive association with student test scores......................................................................... 9 

4 Methods districts use to select schools for participation in the LSL grant during the 

2003–04 school year ............................................................................................................. 11 

5 Methods used to distribute grant money to schools: 2003–04 school year.......................... 12 

6 Percent of districts using various personnel to decide which schools to serve and how 

grant funds should be spent: 2003–04 school year .............................................................. 12 

7 Percent of grant funding spent by category: 2003–04 school year ...................................... 13 

8 Percent of grantee and nongrantee school libraries receiving funding from various 

federal education programs during the 2003–04 school year ............................................... 14 

9 Percent of grantee and nongrantee school libraries receiving funding from various 

outside sources during the 2003–04 school year .................................................................. 14 

10 Mean grantee and nongrantee school library total expenditures for all materials, 

computer hardware, and audiovisual equipment for the 2002–03 and 2003–04 school 

years...................................................................................................................................... 15 
 v 

EXHIBITS—CONTINUED 

Exhibit 

11 Mean grantee and nongrantee school library expenditures for all materials, including 

books, video materials, CD-ROM titles, and subscriptions for the 2002–03 and 

2003–04 school years............................................................................................................ 15 

12 Distribution of expenditures for various materials by grantee and nongrantee school 

libraries: 2003–04 school year ............................................................................................. 16

13 Mean grantee and nongrantee school library expenditures for computer hardware, other 

than communications equipment, for the 2002–03 and 2003–04 school years .................... 16 

14 Mean grantee and nongrantee school library expenditures for audiovisual equipment for 

the 2002–03 and 2003–04 school years ................................................................................ 17 

15 Percent of grantee and nongrantee school libraries identifying various resource-related 

needs through a needs assessment, and the percent that made changes: Fall 2004 ............. 20 

16 Percent of grantee and nongrantee school libraries identifying various staffing-related 

needs through a needs assessment, and the percent that made changes: Fall 2004 ............. 21 

17 Percent of grantee and nongrantee school libraries reporting that their holdings were 

excellent or adequate in supporting the instructional program in English, 

by type of material: Spring 2003 and 2004.......................................................................... 22 

18 Percent of grantee and nongrantee school libraries reporting that their resources were 

excellent or adequate, by type of resource: Spring 2004 ..................................................... 23 

19 Mean acquisitions and holdings of grantee and nongrantee school libraries during the 

2003–04 school year ............................................................................................................. 23 

20 Percent of grantee and nongrantee school libraries with the copyright date of their most 

recent atlas: Fall 2004 .......................................................................................................... 24 

21 Percent of grantee and nongrantee school libraries with the copyright date of their most 

recent general encyclopedia: Fall 2004................................................................................ 24 

22 Percent of grantee and nongrantee school libraries indicating that various factors were 

very or somewhat important in selecting books to add to their collection: Fall 2004 ......... 25 

23 Percent of grantee and nongrantee school libraries indicating that various kinds of 

equipment were located within the school library: Fall 2004.............................................. 26 

24 Percent of grantee and nongrantee school libraries in which various electronic services 

were not available: Fall 2004............................................................................................... 26 
 vi 

EXHIBITS—CONTINUED 

Exhibit 

25 Percent of grantee and nongrantee school libraries reporting that various electronic 

services were networked to locations outside of the library: Fall 2004............................... 27 

26 Most frequent approach used by grantee and nongrantee schools to provide various 

electronic services: Fall 2004............................................................................................... 27 

27 Percent of grantee and nongrantee school libraries with computer access to the catalogs 

of other libraries: Fall 2004.................................................................................................. 28 

28 Percent of grantee and nongrantee school libraries that participated in various 

cooperative activities with local public libraries: Fall 2004 ................................................ 28 

29 Changes from 2003 to 2004 in the time that school libraries were open during a typical 

full week, by grantee status................................................................................................... 29 

30 Changes from 2003 to 2004 in the time that school libraries were open during the 

summer, by grantee status..................................................................................................... 29 

31 Mean number of nonschool hours of access per week: Spring 2003 and 2004 ................... 30 

32 Provision of access during nonschool hours, by grantee status per week: Spring 2003 

and 2004................................................................................................................................ 30 

33 Uses of extended hours during 2003–04 school year ........................................................... 31 

34 Mean usage of library resources per student: Spring 2003 and 2004 .................................. 31 

35 Percentage of school libraries offering selected services at the highest listed level of 

frequency during the 2003–04 school year........................................................................... 32 

36 Percent of school libraries providing new or expanded general programs or services in 

2003–04 compared to 2002–03, by grantee status................................................................ 33 

37 Percent of school libraries providing new or expanded programs related to reading or 

English in 2003–04 compared to 2002–03, by grantee status............................................... 33 

38 Mean number of programs or services that were added or expanded in 2003–04, 

by grantee status.................................................................................................................... 34 

39 Mean number of school library staff, by grantee status: Spring 2003 and 2004.................. 34 

40 Mean number of pupils per librarian, by grantee status: Spring 2003 and 2004 ................. 34 

41 Mean number of staff participating in professional development, by grantee status: 

2003–04 school year ............................................................................................................. 35 
 vii 

EXHIBITS—CONTINUED 

Exhibit 

42 Percentage of school libraries covering selected topics in professional development 

activities, by grantee status: 2003–04 school year................................................................ 35 

43 Percentage of school libraries with library staff working with classroom teachers on a 

weekly basis: 2003–04 school year....................................................................................... 36 

44 Percentage of school libraries providing selected services to classroom teachers in 

reading or English: 2003–04 school year.............................................................................. 36 

45 Percent of grantee and nongrantee schools providing instruction in information skills, 

by where that instruction was provided: 2003–04 school year............................................ 37 

46 Percent of grantee and nongrantee school libraries reporting that various personnel 

provided instruction on information skills: 2003–04 school year........................................ 37 

47 Comparison of library characteristics prior to 2003–04 grants, by grantee status................ 38 

A-1 Percent of districts using various methods to select schools for participation in the grant 

and to distribute grant money to the schools, by district characteristics: 2003–04 school 

year........................................................................................................................................ A-3 

A-2 Percent of districts using various personnel to decide which schools to serve, by district 

characteristics: 2003–04 school year .................................................................................... A-4 

A-3 Percent of districts using various personnel to decide how the grant funds should be 

spent, by district characteristics: 2003–04 school year......................................................... A-5 

A-4 Total grant funding, and the percent of funding spent by category, by district 

characteristics: 2003–04 school year ................................................................................... A-6 

A-5 Receipt of outside funding during the 2003–04 school year, by school characteristics ....... A-7 

A-6 Mean expenditures in school libraries and percent change of those expenditures 

between the 2002–03 and 2003–04 school years, by school characteristics......................... A-8 

A-7 Mean expenditures for all materials in the 2002–03 and 2003–04 school years and 

distribution of 2003–04 expenditures among selected materials, by school 

characteristics........................................................................................................................ A-9 

A-8 Percent of school libraries that conducted a needs assessment in the last two years, 

and percent of those libraries that identified particular needs, by school characteristics: 

Fall 2004 ............................................................................................................................... A-10 

A-9 Percent of school libraries that made changes as the result of a needs assessment in the 

last two years, by school characteristics: Fall 2004 ............................................................. A-11 
 viii 

EXHIBITS—CONTINUED 

Exhibit 

A-10 Percent of school libraries’ holdings that support the instructional program in English, 

by degree of adequacy, grantee status, and type of material: Spring 2003 and 2004 ........... A-12 

A-11 Percent of school libraries reporting that their holdings in supporting the instructional 

program in English were adequate or excellent in spring 2003 and spring 2004, 

by school characteristics ....................................................................................................... A-13 

A-12 Percent of school libraries reporting the adequacy of their resources in specified areas, 

by grantee status: Spring 2004.............................................................................................. A-14 

A-13 Percent of school libraries reporting that their resources were excellent or adequate in 

specified areas, by school characteristics: Spring 2004....................................................... A-15 

A-14 Recency of copyrights of holdings at school libraries, by school characteristics: 

Fall 2004 ............................................................................................................................... A-16 

A-15 Percent of schools indicating the importance of various factors in their library’s choice 

of books to add during the 2003–04 school year, by grantee status ..................................... A-17 

A-16 Percent of school libraries reporting that various factors were very important when 

selecting books to add to the collection during the 2003–04 school year, by school 

characteristics........................................................................................................................ A-18 

A-17 Percent of school libraries reporting that selected kinds of equipment were located 

within the school library, by school characteristics: Fall 2004............................................. A-19 

A-18 Percent of school libraries reporting that various electronic services were available on 

different kinds of networks, by grantee status: Fall 2004 ..................................................... A-20 

A-19 Percent of school libraries reporting that various electronic services were networked to 

locations outside of the library, by school characteristics: Fall 2004 ................................... A-21 

A-20 Percent of school libraries with computer access to catalogs of other libraries, by type 

of library and school characteristics: Fall 2004 ................................................................... A-22 

A-21 Percent 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 2004 ............................................................................................................................... A-23 

A-22 Mean length of time the school library was open, by school characteristics: Spring 2003 

and 2004................................................................................................................................ A-24 

A-23 Access to the school library during nonschool hours, by school characteristics: Spring 

2003 and 2004....................................................................................................................... A-25 
 ix 

EXHIBITS—CONTINUED 

Exhibit 

A-24 Mean number of nonschool hours of access to school libraries, by time of access and 

school characteristics: Spring 2003 and 2004....................................................................... A-26 

A-25 Percent of school libraries using extended hours for various activities during the 

2003–04 school year, by school characteristics .................................................................... A-27 

A-26 Mean usage of school library resources per student, by school characteristics: Spring 

2003 and 2004....................................................................................................................... A-28 

A-27 Percent of school libraries offering selected services and the frequency of those 

services, by grantee status: 2003–04 school year ................................................................. A-29 

A-28 Percent of school libraries reporting that they provide selected services, by the highest 

listed level of frequency, by school characteristics: 2003–04 school year ........................... A-30 

A-29 Percent of school libraries indicating changes in their provision of selected services in 

the 2003–04 school year, by grantee status and type of service ........................................... A-31 

A-30 Percent of school libraries providing selected new or expanded general programs in the 

2003–04 school year, by school characteristics .................................................................... A-32 

A-31 Percent of school libraries providing selected new or expanded programs related to 

reading or English in the 2003–04 school year, by school characteristics............................ A-33 

A-32 Mean number of staff per school library and pupils per librarian, by school 

characteristics: Spring 2003 and 2004 .................................................................................. A-34 

A-33 Percent of staff participating in professional development on topics related to school 

libraries and mean number of staff receiving the professional development, by type of 

staff and school characteristics: 2003–04 school year .......................................................... A-35 

A-34 Number of times per year that selected topics related to school libraries were covered in 

professional development activities, by grantee status: 2003–04 school year...................... A-36 

A-35 Percent of schools offering professional development in topics related to school 

libraries, by topic area, number of times per year, and school characteristics: 2003–04 

school year ............................................................................................................................ A-37 

A-36 Percent of school libraries reporting that library staff worked with classroom teachers 

on selected curriculum areas at various frequency rates, by grantee status: 2003–04 

school year ............................................................................................................................ A-38 
 x 

EXHIBITS—CONTINUED 

Exhibit 

A-37 Percent of school libraries reporting that library staff worked weekly with classroom 

teachers on selected curriculum areas, by school characteristics: 2003–04 school year ...... A-39 

A-38 Percent of school libraries reporting that library staff provided selected services to 

classroom teachers in the area of reading or English, by grantee status: 2003–04 school 

year........................................................................................................................................ A-40 

A-39 Percent of school libraries reporting that library staff provided selected services weekly 

to classroom teachers in the area of reading or English, by school characteristics: 

2003–04 school year ............................................................................................................. A-41 

A-40 Percent of school libraries providing instruction in information skills, by location of 

instruction and who provided the instruction, by school characteristics: 2003–04 school 

year........................................................................................................................................ A-42 

B-1 Number of schools sampled, and number of responses ........................................................ B-6 

B-2 Selected standard errors for school survey statistics............................................................. B-9 
 xi 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

The Improving Literacy through School Libraries (LSL) Program was established by the No Child 

Left Behind Act of 2001 under Title I, Part A, Subpart 4 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act 

(ESEA). 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; well-equipped, 

technologically advanced school library media centers; 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. This report provides findings from the evaluation. 

Characteristics of the Improving Literacy through School Libraries Program 

Districts in which at least 20 percent of the students are from families with incomes below the 

poverty line are eligible for the program. Charter schools and intermediate service agencies that meet the 

poverty requirements and are local education agencies are also eligible to participate. There are no 

specific eligibility criteria for grantee schools. Districts may use program funds to do the following: 

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

• Acquire and use advanced technology, to be incorporated into the curricula of the school, to 

develop and enhance the 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 have received time 

extensions. Thus far, the program has had four award cycles (Exhibit E-1). 

Exhibit E-1 

Improving Literacy through School Libraries Program grant awards: 2002–05 

Fiscal Year 

Total amount 

available for 

award 

(in millions) 

Number of 

awards 

Average 

award 

Smallest 

award 

Largest 

award 

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 ................. $19.6 85 $223,500 $30,000 $350,000 
 xii 

Overview of the Evaluation 

The key evaluation questions1

 were: 

• 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? 

The two data sources used in the evaluation are described below: 

• A survey of school libraries. The survey was sent in the fall of 2004 to a sample of 400 

school libraries receiving the grant in 2003–04 (grantees) and to a matched comparison sample 

of 400 schools in districts that were eligible for the grant in that year (nongrantees). 

Characteristics used in the matching process included school type, enrollment size, type of 

locale, percentage of students belonging to racial or ethnic minorities, and poverty status. 

• The district performance reports. Each grant recipient must submit a report to the 

Department of Education (ED) within 90 days after 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. Performance 

reports from districts receiving the grant in 2003-04 were analyzed for this evaluation. 

Results and Conclusions 

 Targeting of program funds 

• More than half (58 percent) of the districts receiving grants served all schools in the district. 

No school selection process was needed for the 14 percent of grantee districts containing only 

one school. 

• Grantee school libraries started at a relative disadvantage when compared with nongrantee 

school libraries: 

- Among those that reported they had conducted needs assessments, grantees were more 

likely to identify needs with regard to having up-to-date materials (97 percent versus 

83 percent), having the library open for more hours (68 percent versus 36 percent), and 

having more time for planning with teachers (61 percent versus 44 percent). 

Nongrantees did not have any area of need that was greater than grantee need by a 

statistically significant amount. 

 

1 The original evaluation plan contained one additional evaluation question to address impact: How do reading achievement 

scores vary in schools that received grants for one or two years compared with matched comparison schools that have not 

received grants? This question was to address a congressional requirement to look at the impact of program activities on 

improving the reading skills of students. The intended data source for this component of the evaluation was the U.S. 

Department of Education’s (ED’s) school-level assessment database (SLAD). However, this database has undergone some 

changes during the course of the evaluation and the data were not ready in time for analysis. Alternative sources of student 

achievement data were not available.
 xiii 

- In spring 2003, grantees were less likely than nongrantees to consider their holdings to 

be either excellent or adequate with regard both to overall reading or English literature 

(65 percent versus 79 percent) and to print materials (62 percent versus 81 percent). 

• An analysis was also done of academic need as measured by the percentage of schools 

identified for improvement. Altogether, 19 percent of the grantee schools and 11 percent of 

the nongrantee schools were identified for improvement. 

Use of program funds 

Receipt of the grants appears to 

have resulted in major changes in the 

school libraries, bringing them up to a 

level of equality with the nongrantees and 

sometimes helping them to surpass the 

nongrantees. Some of the most notable 

changes were as follows: 

• More grantees than 

nongrantees had automated 

circulation systems (95 percent 

versus 87 percent) in 2003–04, 

though no measures of their 

status prior to the grants are 

available. 

• Grantees showed significant 

increases in the days that the 

libraries were open in the 

summer (Exhibit E-2), as well 

as in the hours they were open, 

in a typical full week in spring 

(Exhibit E-3), while the nongrantees showed no significant 

change. 

• Grantees showed an increase in 

library usage, from 1.1 visits 

per student per week in 2003 to 

1.2 visits in 2004, a statistically 

significant change using 

regression analysis. The 

nongrantees showed no 

significant change (a mean of 

1.6 in both years). 

Exhibit E-2 

Changes from 2003 to 2004 in the time that school 

libraries were open during the summer, 

by grantee status 

4.0

3.6

4.2

6.2

0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0

Nongrantees

Grantees

Number of days

2004

2003

Exhibit E-3 

Changes from 2003 to 2004 in the time that school 

libraries were open during a typical full week, 

by grantee status 

33.8

35.3

34.4

37.1

0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0

Nongrantees

Grantees

Number of days

2004

2003
 xiv 

Exhibit E-4 

Percent of school libraries providing new or expanded 

programs in 2003–04 compared to 2002–03, 

by grantee status 

42

43

52

9

23

30

0 20 40 60 80 100

After-school program 

with library 

orientation

Work on curriculum issues 

Assist with research 

projects for students 

Percent

Grantees

Nongrantees

Exhibit E-5 

Mean grantee and nongrantee school library total 

expenditures for all materials, computer hardware, 

and audiovisual equipment for the 2002–03 and 

2003–04 school years 

$11,500 $13,200

$21,500

$12,600

$0

$5,000

$10,000

$15,000

$20,000

$25,000

Dollars

2003–04 2003–04

Grantees Nongrantees

2002–03 2002–03

• Grantees were more likely than 

nongrantees to have added or 

expanded their services in several 

areas, including assisting teachers 

with research projects for students 

(52 percent versus 30 percent), 

working with the principal and/or 

teachers on curriculum issues 

(43 percent versus 23 percent), and 

providing an after-school program 

with a library orientation (42 percent 

versus 9 percent) (Exhibit E-4). 

These increases appeared primarily 

to bring the grantees to a level of 

equality in services with 

nongrantees. 

• Funds for grantee school libraries 

roughly doubled from 2002–03 to 

2003–04, while funds for 

nongrantees showed no significant 

change. The great bulk of these 

expenditures were for materials, 

particularly books (78 percent of the 

funds for materials in 2003–04, as 

compared with other materials such 

as video materials, CD-ROM titles, 

or subscriptions). 

• Grantees started out in 2002-03 with 

no significant difference from 

nongrantees in their levels of 

expenditures but had much higher 

expenditures after receiving the 

grants (Exhibit E-5). Thus, the 

district grants resulted in large 

increases in expenditures at the 

school level and did not appear to 

supplant local spending for school 

libraries. 

• Grantees also acquired substantially more books in 2003–04 than did nongrantees 

(with means of 1,250 and 730 books, respectively), putting them in a position of rough 

equality in the size of their book collections. 

• Overall, districts receiving grants for the 2003-04 school year spent about two-thirds 

(68 percent) of the grant money on school library media resources, including books. 

About one-tenth each was spent on the acquisition of advanced technology (11 

percent) and on operating the school library during nonschool hours (11 percent). 
 xv 

 Relationship between participation in the program and staff collaboration and coordination 

• Grantees were more likely to have professional development activities related to school 

libraries than nongrantees, and more specifically to cover methods of collaboration as part of 

their professional development activities. 

• Grantees also were more likely than nongrantees to report collaboration between library staff 

and classroom teachers on reading or language arts (70 percent versus 59 percent), though not 

in other subject areas. More specifically, grantees were more likely to work with classroom 

teachers in curriculum development (67 percent versus 55 percent). 

Results of this evaluation show how grantees have used and targeted funds from the Department’s 

Improving Literacy Through School Libraries discretionary grant program during 2003–04. This report 

also provides detailed information on research related to school libraries and literacy and school-level 

changes associated with the program. 
 xvi 
1 

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. 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. This report provides findings 

from the evaluation. 

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 conclusions of 

the evaluation are contained in the fifth chapter of this report. 

Characteristics of the Improving Literacy through School Libraries Program 

The LSL Program is one of several reading skills programs in the current ESEA. It is a 

competitive grant award program with two eligibility requirements. The first requirement is that the 

applicant must be a local education agency (LEA); charter schools, regional service agencies, and stateadministered schools may be designated as LEAs.2

 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 grantee schools. 

Districts may use program funds to do the following: 

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

• Acquire and use advanced technology, to be incorporated into the curricula of the school, to 

develop and enhance the 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 

 

2 In the rest of the report, the term district will be used rather than LEA because most grant recipients are public school districts. 
2 

• 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 have received time 

extensions. Thus far, the program has had three award cycles and grants for the fourth cycle are expected 

to be awarded in September 2005 (Exhibit 1). 

Exhibit 1 

Improving Literacy through School Libraries Program grant awards: 2002–05 

Fiscal Year 

Total amount 

available for 

award 

(in millions) 

Number of 

awards 

Average 

award 

Smallest 

award 

Largest 

award 

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 ................. $19.6 85 $223,500 $30,000 $350,000 

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 librarians, 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 impact of project 

activities. 

The LSL Web site contains a guidebook for assisting districts in preparing their applications. The 

Web site also provides poverty information so that school districts can determine if 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. 
3 

The key evaluation questions3

 were: 

• 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? 

The two data sources used in the evaluation are described below: 

• A survey of school libraries. The survey was sent in the fall of 2004 to a sample of 400 

school libraries receiving the grant in 2003–04 (grantees) and to a matched comparison sample 

of 400 schools 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 the percentage receiving free or reduced-price 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 response rate was 

91 percent for the grantees and 89 percent for the nongrantees. 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. 

• The district performance reports. Each grant recipient must submit a report to the 

Department of Education (ED) within 90 days after 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 2003–04 were analyzed for this evaluation. 

The evaluation focused on the projects that received their grants in 2003, the second cohort of 

grantees. These grants were implemented in the 2003–04 school year. Of the 73 grants awarded in the 

target year, six went to consortia of more than one district and six went to districts that had received an 

LSL in the previous year as well. 

In 2003–04, approximately 650 schools participated in the program. The characteristics of these 

schools differed from U.S. schools overall and schools in all districts that were eligible for the program in 

 

3 The original evaluation plan contained one additional evaluation question to address impact: How do reading achievement 

scores vary in schools that received grants for one or two years compared with matched comparison schools that have not 

received grants? This question was to address a congressional requirement to look at the impact of program activities on 

improving the reading skills of students. The intended data source for this component of the evaluation was the U.S. 

Department of Education’s (ED’s) school-level assessment database (SLAD). However, this database has undergone some 

changes during the course of the evaluation and the data were not ready in time for analysis. Alternative sources of student 

achievement data were not available. 
4 

that year (Exhibit 2). A considerably greater proportion of the grantee schools (59 percent) were located 

in cities compared to all U.S. schools (26 percent) and all schools in eligible districts (39 percent) 

(Exhibit 2). Rural schools comprised 18 percent of the grantee schools, and 29 percent of schools in both 

all eligible districts and all U.S. schools. By region, grantee schools were more similar to all U.S. schools 

than they were to all schools in eligible districts. For example, 50 percent of all eligible schools were 

located in the west, while 31 percent of the grantee schools and 33 percent of all U.S. schools were 

located in the west. The proportion of small schools in the grantee schools (25 percent) was somewhat 

smaller than the portion among all schools in eligible districts (34 percent) and all U.S. schools 

(32 percent). Grantee schools also were somewhat less likely to be high schools (21 percent) than among 

either all schools in eligible districts (28 percent) or, to a lesser degree, all U.S. schools (25 percent). 

Exhibit 2 

Percent distribution of participating schools in grantee districts, all schools in all 

eligible districts, and all U.S. schools, by school characteristics: 2003–04 school year 

School characteristic Participating schools in 

grantee districts 

All schools in eligible 

districts All U.S. schools 

Enrollment size 

1–299.............................................. 25 34 32 

300–599.......................................... 42 36 37 

600 or more .................................... 33 30 30 

 

School level 

Elementary...................................... 59 56 57 

Middle/junior high.......................... 19 16 18 

High school/combined/other .......... 21 28 25 

 

Urbanicity 

City................................................. 59 39 26 

Urban fringe ................................... 14 19 34 

Town............................................... 9 14 10 

Rural............................................... 18 29 29 

 

Region 

Northeast ........................................ 24 9 18 

Southeast ........................................ 24 25 21 

Central ............................................ 22 15 28 

West................................................ 31 50 33 

NOTE: Percents 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," 2002-03. Eligibility file supplied by the U.S. Census Bureau; Grantee file 

supplied by the Improving Literacy through School Libraries Program. 

Grantee schools also differed from nongrantee schools in another respect: 19 percent were 

identified for improvement, compared with 11 percent of the nongrantees (not shown in tables). Both 

groups of these disadvantaged schools were more likely to need improvement than schools overall 

(7 percent). Still, in absolute terms, about two-thirds of schools identified as needing improvement were 

not in districts eligible for the grants. 

It should be noted that for the target year of the evaluation, the LSL program cut technology 

purchases from the budgets of many applications because other funding sources were available for these 

purposes. Similarly, districts were encouraged to seek alternative sources of funding for rewiring the 

school library. Finally, for the target year, professional development activities were limited to early 
5 

childhood development because the legislation contained an incorrect citation. A waiver had been 

obtained for the first year of the program but not for the target year of the evaluation. 
6 
7 

Chapter 2 

Research on School Libraries and Literacy 

A growing body of research has found an association of certain school library characteristics with 

increased student achievement. This section provides a brief summary of the research literature, focusing 

primarily on two topics: general evidence of the association of school libraries with student test scores 

and 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. 

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 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 due 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 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, and even the 

general level of resources at the school is likely to change less dramatically than the library resources, due 

to the comparative size of the grants with regard to school libraries’ typical budgets. 

As another methodological issue, 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. Given the 

current lack of test score data for this study, this issue is not directly relevant to the analyses contained 

here, but it should be considered when building general models of how changes in school libraries might 

influence students. 

General Evidence of the Association of School Libraries with Student Test Scores 

Many states have conducted research on the impact of school libraries within their state and found 

positive relationships with student test scores. The specific factors that were associated with improved 

test scores are discussed later in this chapter, while the general findings are presented below. 

• 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 
8 

amounts of staff time devoted to delivering library and information literacy instruction to 

students and providing in-service training to teachers and other staff (Burgin and Bracy, 2003). 

• Colorado. Keith Curry Lance’s first Colorado study found the size of the library (i.e., the 

number of staff and the size of the collection) explains between 5 and 15 percent of the 

variation in reading scores (Lance, Rodney, and Hamilton-Pennell, 2000b). 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 to 15 percent in the seventh grade (ibid.). 

• 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, p. 4). 

• 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, n.d.). 

• Massachusetts. Mean Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System (MCAS) scores 

tended to be higher in schools with school library programs at all grade levels (ibid.). 

• Missouri. Scores on the Missouri Assessment Program were positively associated with the 

availability of school library program services (ibid.). 

• 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 such characteristics as large print collections, more visits by students, 

and more staff (ibid.). 

• 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 community 

conditions such as poverty and low educational attainment (Lance, Rodney, and HamiltonPennell, 2000a). 

• Texas. Texas Assessment of Academic Skills (TAAS) 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, n.d.). 

Characteristics of School Libraries That Are Associated with Higher Student Test Scores 

A large number of factors have been specifically associated with improved scores (Exhibit 3). The 

exhibit below primarily emphasizes those factors that were examined in multiple studies, while a large 

number of additional factors were associated with improved scores in individual studies (e.g., the study in 

Texas used a variety of measures of technology that were not used in other states). 
9 

These individual factors may not necessarily be sufficient by themselves but 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 only important when also combined with a schoolwide initiative to integrate 

information literacy into the school’s approach to standards and curricula (Lance, Rodney, and HamiltonPennell, 2000a, p. 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, p. 26). 

Exhibit 3 

Library services and characteristics and the states in which 

they were found to have a positive association with student test scores 

Library service/characteristic State 

Staffing/availability 

Number of hours of staffing at library (e.g., 

comparing libraries with more than 80 hours 

per week with those with less than 60, the 

total staff hours per 100 students, library 

media specialists’ hours per 100 students) 

Florida, Colorado, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, Oregon, Texas, 

Iowa, North Carolina 

Full-time librarian Alaska, Massachusetts, Texas, Minnesota 

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

Certified school library media specialist Florida, Michigan 

Professional development/training 

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

Collaboration/cooperation 

Cooperative relationships with public 

libraries 

Alaska 

Collaboration between library media 

specialists and teachers 

Colorado, Oregon, Iowa 

Electronic linkages and technology 

Facilities that reach the Internet Alaska, Florida 

Networked linkages with classrooms and 

other instructional sites 

Colorado, Pennsylvania, Oregon 

Automated collections Massachusetts 

Collections and resources 

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

Pennsylvania

Periodical subscriptions per 100 students Colorado, Oregon, Texas 

Video collections per 100 students Texas, Iowa 

Audio materials Iowa 

Electronic reference titles per 100 students Colorado, 

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

Carolina 

Recency of copyright dates Iowa, North Carolina 

Usage 

Usage of library (as measured by the number 

of visits to the library media center or a high 

number of books checked out per student) 

Colorado, Florida, Massachusetts, Oregon 
10 
11 

Chapter 3 

How the Program Is Implemented 

The Improving Literacy through School Libraries grants for the 2003–04 school year were awarded 

to districts, which, in turn, selected schools for participation in the grant. The evaluation examined the 

allocation of grant funds to schools. Other outside support for literacy and libraries that grantee and 

nongrantee schools might have available were explored. In addition, the evaluation looked at the 

allocation of library funds in both grantee and nongrantee school libraries. 

 How Districts Receiving Grants 

Allocate Program Funds to Schools 

The majority of districts 

indicated which schools they planned to 

serve in their grant application, 

although some made changes after the 

grant was received. Districts receiving 

grants were asked about the basis they 

used to select schools for participation. 

More than half (58 percent) of the 

districts served all schools in the district 

(Exhibits 4 and A-1). Districts could 

use more than one method to select 

schools for participation. About onethird (36 percent) selected the neediest 

schools based on lack of library 

resources, and about one-third 

(31 percent) chose to serve all schools 

at a particular grade level. No selection 

process was needed for the 14 percent 

of grantee districts containing only one 

school. 

Exhibit 4 

Methods districts use to select schools for 

participation in the LSL grant during the 

2003–04 school year

11

4

12

14

31

36

58

0 20 40 60 80 100

Other

Identified for improvement under

No Child Left Behind

Need, based on poverty

District had only one school

All schools serving a particular 

grade level

Need, based on library resources

All schools in district

Percent

NOTE: Districts could use more than one method to select schools for 

participation. 
12 

Districts were also asked about 

the distribution of grant money to the 

schools. About one-third (33 percent) 

provided each participating school with 

the same amount of money (Exhibits 5 

and A-1). About one-fifth (22 percent) 

gave each participating school an 

amount based on the number of 

students in the school. For 8 percent of 

the districts, all purchasing was done at 

the district level. More than one-third 

(38 percent) of the districts used other 

approaches to distribute the grant 

money, including prioritized lists 

prepared by school librarians and the 

use of a different approach for each 

type of resource. 

The LSL legislation called for 

the involvement of school library 

media specialists, teachers, 

administrators, and parents in program 

activities. Therefore, the districts were 

asked about the involvement of various 

stakeholders in the school selection 

process and in determining how the 

grant money should be spent. Most 

districts included school librarians in 

both the school selection process 

(89 percent) and determining how the 

grant money school be spent 

(94 percent) (Exhibits 6, A-2, and A-3). 

Most districts (90 percent) included 

classroom teachers in the decisions 

regarding expenditures, but only about 

one-third (39 percent) of the districts 

included parents. District-level staff 

such as superintendents, district school 

library coordinators, and reading 

curriculum coordinators were more apt 

to be involved in the school selection decision, whereas building-level staff such as classroom teachers 

and reading specialists were more apt to be involved in determining how the money should be spent. 

Exhibit 5 

Methods used to distribute grant money to schools: 

2003–04 school year

38%

22%

8%

33%

All schools equal

Other

Per pupil basis

Purchasing at

district level

NOTE: Percents may not add to 100 because of rounding. 

Exhibit 6 

Percent of districts using various personnel to decide 

which schools to serve and how grant funds should be 

spent: 2003–04 school year

39

45

36

90

60

72

56

94

23

31

44

39

69

72

75

89

0 20 40 60 80 100

Parents

Reading specialists

Reading curriculum coordinator

Classroom teachers

District school library coordinator

Principal(s)

Superintendent(s)

School librarians

Percent

Which schools to

serve

How grant funds

should be spent
13 

The LSL legislation specified 

that the grant money could be used to 

fund five types of activities. Districts 

receiving grants for the 2003–04 

school year spent about two-thirds 

(68 percent) of the grant money on 

school library media resources, 

including books (Exhibits 7 and A-4). 

About one-tenth each was spent on the 

acquisition of advanced technology 

(11 percent) and on operating the 

school library during nonschool hours 

(11 percent). 

Other Outside Support for Literacy and Libraries 

Economic disadvantage is a criterion for participation in the LSL program. In addition to LSL, 

several other federal programs provide funding for literacy programs in high-poverty districts. Some 

nonfederal programs also provide funding for school libraries. One would want to know the extent to 

which grantees were utilizing these other funding sources, particularly in comparison with nongrantees 

who met the economic criteria for the LSL program. 

School libraries were asked if they had participated in four other federal education programs during 

2003–04: Reading First, Early Reading First, Title I, and Comprehensive School Reform. These 

programs are all part of No Child Left Behind, and all target high-poverty districts. Reading First serves 

students in grades K–3 who are reading below grade level. Early Reading First provides high-quality oral 

language and literature-rich environments to pre–school-age children in order to prevent reading 

difficulties. The purpose of Title I, originally established in 1965, is to raise student achievement in 

schools with students from families below the poverty level. Title I funds may be used for a variety of 

services and activities and are most commonly used for instruction in reading and mathematics. 

Comprehensive School Reform provides start-up financial assistance to schools so that they can 

implement whole-school reforms; priority is given to schools that have been identified for Title I school 

improvement. 

Exhibit 7 

Percent of grant funding spent by category: 

2003–04 school year

11% 68%

11%

3%

1% 6%

Resources, including books

Advanced technology

Nonschool library hours

Linkage to Internet and other

networks

Professional development

Other
14 

Participation in these federal 

programs was not significantly 

different for grantee and nongrantee 

schools during 2003–04, when the LSL 

grant was implemented (Exhibits 8 and 

A-5). About four-fifths of the schools 

(85 percent for grantees and 80 percent 

for non-grantees) participated in Title I. 

Less than 20 percent participated in 

Reading First or Comprehensive 

School Reform, and less than 5 percent 

participated in Early Reading First. 

School libraries were also asked 

if they had received funding from 

outside sources other than the federal 

programs during 2003–04. The 

percentage of school libraries receiving 

this outside funding was about the 

same for grantee and nongrantee 

libraries (Exhibits 9 and A-5). About 

half had received a state allotment, 

though grantees were more likely to 

have received state allotments if they 

were in rural areas (75 percent) than if 

they were in cities (35 percent). Less 

than 12 percent had received funding 

from not-for-profit groups and 

corporate donors. 

Exhibit 9 

Percent of grantee and nongrantee school libraries 

receiving funding from various outside sources 

during the 2003–04 school year 

4

9

53

4

11

51

0 20 40 60 80 100

Corporate donors

Not-for-profit

group

State allotment

Percent

Grantee

Nongrantee

Exhibit 8 

Percent of grantee and nongrantee school libraries 

receiving funding from various federal education 

programs during the 2003–04 school year

1

11

17

80

4

15

15

85

0 20 40 60 80 100

Early Reading

First

Comprehensive

School Reform

Reading First

Title 1

Percent

Grantee

Nongrantee
15 

How Schools Allocate Library Funds 

LSL funds can provide a large 

infusion of money to individual school 

libraries. Generally, the evaluation 

found that the grantees showed great 

change after receiving the grant, while 

the nongrantees showed no significant 

change. When the expenditures for all 

materials, computer hardware, and 

audiovisual equipment are combined, 

grantee expenditures during the grant 

year show significant differences from 

expenditures during the previous year 

and from nongrantee expenditures in 

both years (Exhibits 10 and A-6). 

During 2002–03, the year prior to the 

grant, there was no significant 

difference between the amount for 

grantees ($11,500) and nongrantees 

($13,200). During the grant year, 

2003–04, the average for grantees almost doubled to $21,500, a significant increase, while average 

nongrantee expenditures at $12,600 were not a significant change. 

When expenditures for just 

materials are examined separately, some 

significant increases in expenditures by 

grantees in the grant year are evident 

(Exhibits 11 and A-7). Average 

expenditures for all materials, including 

books, video materials, CD-ROM titles, 

and subscriptions, were not significantly 

different for grantees ($9,000) and 

nongrantees ($8,100) for 2002–03. 

However, for 2003–04, the year of the 

LSL grant, grantee school libraries spent 

$15,800 on average for materials, which 

was significantly more than the average 

nongrantee expenditure of $8,600. In 

addition, the grantee school libraries had 

a significant increase in expenditures for 

materials from 2002–03 to 2003–04, 

whereas expenditures for nongrantee 

school libraries showed no significant 

increase. 

Exhibit 11 

Mean grantee and nongrantee school library 

expenditures for all materials, including books, video 

materials, CD-ROM titles, and subscriptions for the 

2002–03 and 2003–04 school years 

$9,000 $8,100

$15,800

$8,600

$0

$5,000

$10,000

$15,000

$20,000

Dollars

2003–04 2003–04

Grantees Nongrantees

2002–03 2002–03

Exhibit 10 

Mean grantee and nongrantee school library total 

expenditures for all materials, computer hardware, 

and audiovisual equipment for the 2002–03 and 

2003–04 school years 

$11,500 $13,200

$21,500

$12,600

$0

$5,000

$10,000

$15,000

$20,000

$25,000

Dollars

2003–04 2003–04

Grantees Nongrantees

2002–03 2002–03
16 

The distribution of expenditures for various materials differed for grantee and nongrantee school 

libraries (Exhibits 12 and A-7). Both spent the bulk of the money on books, but the grantees spent a 

significantly greater proportion on books (78 percent) compared to the nongrantees (69 percent). 

Nongrantees spent a significantly greater proportion on print or microform subscriptions and video 

materials compared to grantees. 

Exhibit 12 

Distribution of expenditures for various materials by grantee 

and nongrantee school libraries: 2003–04 school year 

Grantees

78%

9%

4%

4% 1%

2%

Books

Other

Video materials

Print or microform 

subscriptions

Electronic subscriptions

CD-ROM titles

Nongrantees

4%

2%

9%

8%

9%

69%

NOTE: Percents may not add to 100 because of rounding. 

Expenditures for computer 

hardware, other than communications 

equipment, also showed significant 

increases in grantee school libraries 

during the grant year (Exhibits 13 and 

A-6). In 2002–03, grantee school 

libraries spent an average of $1,800 on 

computer hardware, while nongrantees 

spent on average $3,900; although these 

amounts appear to differ, the differences 

are not statistically significant because of 

the variability in the expenditures for the 

nongrantees. In 2003–04, grantees spent 

an average of $3,900 on computer 

hardware, which was more than double 

the expenditures from the year before and 

is a significant difference. At the same 

time, the average nongrantee expenditure 

($3,200) did not show a significant 

change from the prior year. 

Exhibit 13 

Mean grantee and nongrantee school library 

expenditures for computer hardware, 

other than communications equipment, 

for the 2002–03 and 2003–04 school years 

$1,800

$3,900 $3,900

$3,200

$0

$500

$1,000

$1,500

$2,000

$2,500

$3,000

$3,500

$4,000

$4,500

Dollars

2003–04

Grantees Nongrantees

2002–03 2003–04 2002–03
17 

Grantees also showed significant 

increases in expenditures for audiovisual 

equipment during the grant year 

(Exhibits 14 and A-6). In 2002–03, 

grantee school libraries spent an average 

of $500 on audiovisual equipment, while 

nongrantees spent $900, which was 

significantly more. In the grant year, 

2003–04, grantees spent an average of 

$900, essentially the same amount that 

nongrantees had spent in the previous 

year, but a significant increase over what 

the grantees had spent in the previous 

year. Nongrantees spent an average of 

$1,000 on audiovisual equipment in 

2003–04, which was not significantly 

different from the prior year. 

Exhibit 14 

Mean grantee and nongrantee school library 

expenditures for audiovisual equipment for the 

2002–03 and 2003–04 school years 

$500

$900 $900

$1,000

$0

$200

$400

$600

$800

$1,000

$1,200

Dollars

2003–04

Grantees Nongrantees

2002–03 2002–03 2003–04
18 
19 

Chapter 4 

School-Level Changes Associated with the Program 

The evaluation of the Improving Literacy through School Libraries Program explored many 

dimensions of a school library that might be influenced by the program, including the conduct of a needs 

assessment, resources available, extended hours, services offered, staffing, professional development, and 

collaboration with teachers. Grantee and nongrantee school libraries were compared on all dimensions. 

In addition, for some factors, comparisons were made between 2002–03, the year prior to the grant, and 

2003–04, the grant year. 

Needs Assessment 

The legislation establishing the Improving Literacy through School Libraries Program requires 

applications to the program to contain a needs assessment relating to the need for school library media 

improvement. Areas to be addressed in the needs assessment are: 

• Age and condition of school library media resources, including book collections; 

• Access of school library media centers to advanced technology; and 

• Availability of well-trained, professionally certified school library media specialists. 

The winter 2003 version of the U.S. Department of Education’s guidebook for preparing 

applications to the program provides an example of how a school district might document its need for 

school library resources. The example consists of a table showing the following information for each 

school: enrollment, percentage of students meeting the reading standard, collection size, average 

copyright date, number of computers, and number of certified personnel. The guidebook states that a 

good needs assessment is objective and data driven. Applicants are also told to discuss the areas in need 

of improvement and the types of services that are not being provided. 

Program applicants are school districts, but some individual schools, such as some charter schools, 

also are eligible to apply. Thus, although most applicants are districts, the example in the guidebook 

indicates that needs should be demonstrated at the school level. 

As a part of the evaluation, school libraries were asked if their school had conducted a needs 

assessment of library programs and services within the past two years. About half (51 percent) of the 

grantee school libraries and one-third (33 percent) of the nongrantee school libraries had conducted a 

needs assessment, a significant difference (Exhibit A-8). At the same time, it is interesting to note that 

almost half of the grantee school libraries (49 percent) said they had not conducted a needs assessment; a 

needs assessment is not specifically required in order to receive a LSL grant, but is mentioned in the grant 

application as a way of defining need. 

School libraries that had conducted a needs assessment were asked to indicate the needs they had 

identified and changes they had made as a result. Generally, the grantees were needier than the 

nongrantees, and the grantees were more likely to address the needs. The most frequently identified 

resource-related need was for more up-to-date materials, which was identified by essentially all grantees 

(97 percent) compared to about four-fifths of the nongrantees (83 percent), a significant difference 

(Exhibits 15 and A-8). In addition, significantly more grantees (93 percent) than nongrantees (68 percent) 
20 

made changes to address this need (Exhibits 15 and A-9). Although about the same percentage of 

grantees (72 percent) and nongrantees (68 percent) identified more computer equipment as a need, 

significantly more grantees (58 percent) than nongrantees (41 percent) had made changes as a result. 

Grantee and nongrantee school libraries did not show significant differences in the percentages reporting 

the need for more materials in languages other than English, space, and rewiring the library, and there 

were no significant differences in the percentages making changes to address these needs. However, 

among grantees, the libraries in rural areas were less likely both to perceive a need for more non-English 

materials than those in urban fringes (24 percent versus 64 percent), and to make changes in response to 

that need (24 percent versus 60 percent). 

Exhibit 15 

Percent of grantee and nongrantee school libraries identifying various resource-related needs 

through a needs assessment, and the percent that made changes: 

Fall 2004 

22

20

14

13

39

35

41

58

68

93

0 20 40 60 80 100

Nongrantee

Grantee

Nongrantee

Grantee

Nongrantee

Grantee

Nongrantee

Grantee

Nongrantee

Grantee

Percent

Made changes

More up-to-date

materials

More computer 

equipment

More materials in 

languages other 

than English

More space

Rewiring the 

library

 97

83

72

68

42

55

40

33

33

32

NOTE: Percents are based on school libraries that had done a needs assessment. 
21 

The most frequently identified staffing-related need for grantees was for more hours in which the 

library is open, mentioned by about two-thirds (68 percent), while only about one-third (36 percent) of the 

nongrantees identified this need, a significant difference (Exhibits 16 and A-8). Significantly more 

grantees (58 percent) than nongrantees (21 percent) made changes to address this need (Exhibits 16 and 

A-9). Grantees were also significantly more likely to identify the need for more planning time with 

teachers and to make changes to address this need, but about one-fourth of both grantees and nongrantees 

had not addressed the need. While the need for more staff was not significantly different for grantees and 

nongrantees, significantly more grantees (24 percent) than nongrantees (8 percent) made changes to 

address this need. About the same percentage of grantees and nongrantees identified the need for more 

professional development and flexible scheduling, and the percentage addressing these needs was about 

the same as well. 

Exhibit 16 

Percent of grantee and nongrantee school libraries identifying various staffing-related needs 

through a needs assessment, and the percent that made changes: Fall 2004 

32

29

8

24

48

49

18

35

21

58

0 20 40 60 80 100

Nongrantee

Grantee

Nongrantee

Grantee

Nongrantee

Grantee

Nongrantee

Grantee

Nongrantee

Grantee

Percent

Made changes

More hours in 

which the library 

is open

More time for 

planning with 

teachers

More professional

development

More library staff

Flexible scheduling

68

 36

61

 44

 60

 58

46

50

48

 56

NOTE: Percents are based on school libraries that had done a needs assessment. 

Resources 

A major purpose of the Improving Literacy through School Libraries Program is to upgrade the 

resources available in the school library. These include the acquisition of resources, including books; the 

acquisition of advanced technology; and the facilitation of Internet linkages and other resource-sharing 

networks with other libraries. Therefore, the evaluation compared grantee and nongrantee school libraries 
22 

regarding the adequacy of their collections, recency of the 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. In addition, for some measures, comparisons were made 

between 2002–03, the year prior to the grant, and 2003–04, the grant year. 

 Collection 

Overall, the grants seemed to even out the difference between grantees and nongrantees. School 

libraries were asked about the adequacy of their materials in supporting the instructional program in 

English. In spring 2003, prior to the implementation of the grant, significantly fewer grantees 

(65 percent) than nongrantees (79 percent) considered their overall reading or English literature holdings 

to be excellent or adequate (Exhibits 17, A-10, and A-11). However, in spring 2004, after the grant 

implementation, the ratings of grantees and nongrantees were about the same. The same pattern occurred 

for print materials, which fewer grantee (62 percent) than nongrantee (81 percent) schools considered to 

be excellent or adequate prior to the grant, but about the same percentage provided these ratings after the 

grant. The holdings of grantees and nongrantees in computer software and video and other audiovisual 

materials were not significantly different during the grant year or the year prior to the grant. 

Exhibit 17 

Percent of grantee and nongrantee school libraries reporting that their holdings were excellent or 

adequate in supporting the instructional program in English, 

by type of material: Spring 2003 and 2004 

53

53

63

56

81

62

79

65

0 20 40 60 80 100

Nongrantee

Grantee

Nongrantee

Grantee

Nongrantee

Grantee

Nongrantee

Grantee

Percent

Percent providing

rating in 2003

Increase from

2003 to 2004

Overall reading/

English literature

Print materials

Video/audiovisual 

materials

Computer software

87

85

85

83

68

69

62

55
23 

School libraries were also asked 

about the adequacy of several types of 

resources that might be used in literacy 

programs. In spring 2004, after the grant 

had been implemented, the percentage of 

grantees and nongrantees indicating that 

the resources were excellent or adequate 

was about the same for each type of 

resource (Exhibits 18, A-12, and A-13).4

 

More than three-fourths considered their 

multicultural materials, high-interest low 

vocabulary materials, and picture books 

and easy readers to be adequate. About 

two-thirds reported that their proprietary 

online resources and subscriptions were 

adequate, and about two-fifths considered 

their English as a second language 

materials to be adequate. 

The acquisitions of grantees and 

nongrantees showed different patterns 

during 2003–04, the year of the grant 

(Exhibit 19). Significantly more books 

were acquired by grantees (a mean of 1,250) compared to nongrantees (730). However, nongrantees 

acquired significantly more print or microform periodical subscriptions. At the end of the grant year, the 

holdings of grantees and nongrantees were similar; the only type of holding that showed a statistically 

significant difference was video materials. 

Exhibit 19 

Mean acquisitions and holdings of grantee and nongrantee 

school libraries during the 2003–04 school year 

Acquired during 2003–04 Total number held at the end of 

Type of material 2003–04 

Grantee Nongrantee Grantee Nongrantee 

Books (all copies).................................... 1,250 730 9,750 9,790 

Video materials (titles) ............................ 34 43 306 384 

CD-ROM titles ........................................ 3 6 35 27 

Print or microform periodical 

subscriptions....................................... 11 17 20 24 

Electronic subscriptions........................... 4 1 4 1 

 

To obtain an indication of the recency of their materials, the school libraries were asked to provide 

the copyright years of their fiction and nonfiction collection. The average year of the fiction collection 

was 1990 for grantees and 1991 for nongrantees, a statistically significant difference (Exhibit A-14). In 

contrast, for the nonfiction collection, the average copyright year was 1991 for both grantees and 

nongrantees. 

 

4

 Only school libraries indicating that the materials were applicable to their school were included in the estimates. 

Exhibit 18 

Percent of grantee and nongrantee school libraries 

reporting that their resources were excellent or 

adequate, by type of resource: Spring 2004 

41

61

76

77

78

40

67

78

82

84

0 20 40 60 80 100

English as a second

language

Proprietary online

resources/subscription

High interest-low

vocabulary

Picture books/

easy readers

Multicultural materials

Percent

Grantee

Nongrantee

NOTE: Percents are based on school libraries reporting that the specified 

area was applicable to their school. 
24 

Copyright year was also obtained for the school library’s most recent world atlas and general 

knowledge encyclopedia, which could be in any format including print, CD-ROM, and online. These 

materials were selected because they become outdated quickly and are found in most school libraries. 

The age of atlases in both grantee and nongrantee school libraries was about the same in fall 2004, after 

the grant had been implemented (Exhibits 20 and A-14). About half (51 percent) of the libraries had 

atlases with a 2003 or 2004 copyright date and were, therefore, less than two years old. 

Exhibit 20 

Percent of grantee and nongrantee school libraries with the 

copyright date of their most recent atlas: Fall 2004 

Grantees

17%

32%

51%

2003 or 2004

2001 or 2002

2000 or earlier

Nongrantees

30%

20%

51%

NOTE: Percents may not add to 100 because of rounding. 

The age of general knowledge encyclopedias was not significantly different for grantees and 

nongrantees (Exhibits 21 and A-14). About two-thirds had a 2003 or 2004 copyright date. 

Exhibit 21 

Percent of grantee and nongrantee school libraries with the copyright 

date of their most recent general encyclopedia: Fall 2004 

Grantees

16%

17%

67%

2003 or 2004

2001 or 2002

2000 or earlier

Nongrantees

20%

18% 62%
25 

School libraries were asked to indicate the importance of various factors in selecting books to add 

to their collection. Responses of grantee and nongrantee school libraries were generally similar 

(Exhibits 22, A-15, and A-16). Factors that were very or somewhat important to more than 90 percent of 

grantee and nongrantee school libraries in their selection process were that the books strengthened 

particular subject areas, were chosen in consultation with classroom teachers, and had won awards. 

Replacing lost books was an important factor for more than four-fifths of grantee and nongrantee school 

libraries. One exception was that significantly more grantees (66 percent) than nongrantees (57 percent) 

considered consultation with the reading specialist to be a very or somewhat important factor in book 

selection. 

Exhibit 22 

Percent of grantee and nongrantee school libraries indicating that various factors 

were very or somewhat important in selecting books to add to their collection: Fall 2004 

36

44

38

44

37

27

57

56

77

78

80

89

21

23

33

34

53

58

34

39

17

18

15

8

0 20 40 60 80 100

Nongrantee

Grantee

Nongrantee

Grantee

Nongrantee

Grantee

Nongrantee

Grantee

Nongrantee

Grantee

Nongrantee

Grantee

Percent

Strengthen 

particular subject 

Consultation with 

classroom teachers

Books had won awards

Consultation with 

reading specialist

Focus on categories 

that become quickly 

outdated

Lost books were 

replaced

98

95

96

94

95

92

86

90

77

71

66

57

Very important

Somewhat important

NOTE: Details may not add to total because of rounding. 
26 

 Technology and internal and 

 external linkages 

The availability of technological 

equipment affects the kinds of services 

provided by school libraries. 

Significantly more grantees (95 percent) 

than nongrantees (87 percent) had 

automated circulation systems 

(Exhibits 23 and A-17). The responses 

from the grantees and nongrantees were 

similar for the other types of equipment: 

about three-fifths had video laser disks or 

DVDs; and 15 percent had technology to 

assist patrons with disabilities. 

School libraries were asked about 

the availability of several types of 

electronic services: Internet access, 

e-mail, automated catalog, electronic 

full-text periodicals, and CD-ROMs. 

The percentages of grantee and 

nongrantee school libraries that do not 

have these services were about the same 

(Exhibits 24 and A-18). The one 

exception was automated catalogs, which 

were not available in 6 percent of the 

grantee school libraries and 18 percent of 

the nongrantee school libraries, a 

significant difference. Fewer than 

10 percent of the school libraries lacked 

Internet access or e-mail. 

Exhibit 23 

Percent of grantee and nongrantee school libraries 

indicating that various kinds of equipment 

were located within the school library: Fall 2004 

15

58

95

87

15

62

0 20 40 60 80 100

Technology to

assist patrons

with disabilities

Video laser disk

or DVD

Automated

circulation

system

Percent

Grantee

Nongrantee

Exhibit 24 

Percent of grantee and nongrantee school libraries in 

which various electronic services were not available: 

Fall 2004 

3

6

18

16

39

2

4

6

17

36

0 20 40 60 80 100

Internet access

E-mail

Automated

catalog

CD-ROMs

Electronic fulltext periodicals

Percent

Grantee

Nongrantee
27 

In addition, school libraries were 

asked about the linkages of these 

electronic services to various types of 

networks, including a library local area 

network (LAN), building-wide LAN, and 

district wide area network (WAN). 

Networking of the electronic services to 

locations outside the library through 

building-wide LANs or district WANs 

was done to the same extent by grantee 

and nongrantee school libraries 

(Exhibits 25 and A-19). Most school 

libraries were networked to locations 

outside the library for the provision of 

Internet access (90 percent) and e-mail 

(88 percent). Automated catalogs and 

electronic full-text periodicals were 

networked to locations outside the library 

for over half of the school libraries. 

The most frequent approach used 

to provide the various electronic services 

was the same for grantee and nongrantee 

schools, and the percentage of schools using the approach was about the same (exhibits 26 and A-18). A 

district WAN was used most frequently to provide e-mail, Internet access, electronic full-text periodicals, 

and automated catalogs. Stand-alone computers were the most frequent approach used with CD-ROMs. 

Exhibit 26 

Most frequent approach used by grantee and nongrantee 

schools to provide various electronic services: Fall 2004 

Percent of schools 

Electronic service using the approach Most frequent approach1

 used 

to provide the service Grantee Nongrantee 

 

E-mail............................................................................. District WAN 78 75 

Internet access ................................................................ District WAN 77 75 

Electronic full-text periodicals ....................................... District WAN 45 40 

CD-ROMs ...................................................................... Stand-alone computer 44 44 

Automated catalogs ........................................................ District WAN 41 36 

WAN = wide area network. 

1

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

Exhibit 25 

Percent of grantee and nongrantee school libraries 

reporting that various electronic services were 

networked to locations outside of the library: Fall 2004 

28

52

57

88

90

27

53

60

88

90

0 20 40 60 80 100

CD-ROMs

Electronic fulltext periodicals

Automated

catalog

Electronic fulltext periodicals

Internet access

Percent

Grantee

Nongrantee
28 

Computer access of the school 

library to the catalogs of other libraries 

presented a mixed picture. Grantees and 

nongrantees did not differ significantly 

in their ability to access the catalogs of 

other school libraries (Exhibits 27 and 

A-20). About half of the school libraries 

could access catalogs of other school 

libraries in their district, and about onethird could access the catalogs of school 

libraries outside their district. In 

contrast, almost three-fourths 

(73 percent) of grantee school libraries 

had computer access to the catalogs of 

public libraries, and about half had 

computer access to a college or 

university library (56 percent) and a 

community college library (48 percent). 

Significantly fewer nongrantee school 

libraries had computer access to the 

catalogs of college, community college, 

and public libraries. 

Another form of linkage with 

other libraries is the conduct of 

cooperative activities, particularly with 

the local public library. Significantly 

more grantees (68 percent) than 

nongrantees (58 percent) had participated 

in some kind of cooperative activity with 

a local public library (Exhibit A-21). 

However, grantees in rural areas were 

less likely to have participated 

(48 percent) than grantees in cities 

(72 percent) and towns (77 percent). The 

types of activities might include 

borrowing materials for the school 

library for classroom teachers, informing 

the public library of curriculum or 

upcoming homework needs, and 

coordinating on student research projects 

such as science fairs. The percentages of 

grantee and nongrantee school libraries 

engaging in these various types of 

cooperative activities were about the 

same (Exhibits 28 and A-21). About two-thirds of the grantee school libraries borrowed materials for 

classroom teachers (73 percent) or the library (67 percent). About half of the grantee school libraries 

informed the public library of upcoming needs (56 percent) and coordinated with the public library on 

student research (49 percent). 

Exhibit 27 

Percent of grantee and nongrantee school libraries with 

computer access to the catalogs of other libraries: 

Fall 2004 

30

37

49

42

61

37

48

56

56

73

0 20 40 60 80 100

School libraries

outside district

Community

college library

Other school

libraries in district

College or

university library

Public library

Percent

Grantee

Nongrantee

Exhibit 28 

Percent of grantee and nongrantee school libraries 

that participated in various cooperative activities 

with local public libraries: Fall 2004 

35

51

52

60

69

37

49

56

67

73

0 20 40 60 80 100

Automation projects such as online

resources

Informing public library of

curriculum or upcoming homework

needs

Borrowing materials for classroom

teachers

Percent

Grantee

Nongrantee

Borrowing materials for

school library

Coordinating on student

resource projects
29 

Involvement of Students 

One of the intended results of the LSL grants is that they will increase usage of the library by the 

students (and possibly others as well). For this reason, libraries were encouraged to increase the number 

of hours that the library is open, especially by offering access during nonschool hours (before or after 

school, or on weekends) or during summer vacations. If these changes or other changes make the library 

more attractive or useful to students, one might also expect to see changes in the actual use of the library. 

Both the topics of extended hours and level of usage are examined here. 

 Extended hours 

On average, only grantees 

increased the number of hours the library 

was open in a typical week from spring 

2003 to spring 2004 (Exhibits 29, 30, and 

A-22). The grantees both started at a 

higher level in 2003 than the nongrantees 

(35.3 versus 33.8) and were the only 

group to show a statistically significant 

increase (to 37.1, an increase of 1.8 

hours).5

 If one assumes that the schools 

on average had a 36-week school year, 

these changes per week would cumulate 

to school-year totals of 64.8 hours among 

grantees. 

Similarly, only the grantees 

showed statistically significant increases 

in the number of days the library was 

open during summer vacation: grantees 

increased from 3.6 to 6.2 days. Note that 

the statistics for the summer are based on 

the number of days rather than the 

number of hours, so that the increases in 

the two time periods are not directly 

comparable. The schools were not asked 

to indicate the length of the daily period 

during the summer when the library was 

open; depending on the school, that time 

period might have ranged from one or 

two hours to a full school day. As a 

conservative estimate to establish a lower 

bound for the number of hours the library 

was open in the summer, one might 

assume that the average across libraries 

was two hours or more. In that case, the 

increase of 0.2 days among nongrantees 

 

5

 The change was not statistically significant for either grantees or nongrantees when performing a comparison of means but was 

significant for grantees when using a regression analysis. 

Exhibit 29 

Changes from 2003 to 2004 in the time that school 

libraries were open during a typical full week, 

by grantee status 

33.8

35.3

34.4

37.1

0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0

Nongrantees

Grantees

Number of days

2004

2003

Exhibit 30 

Changes from 2003 to 2004 in the time that school 

libraries were open during the summer, 

by grantee status 

4.0

3.6

4.2

6.2

0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0

Nongrantees

Grantees

Number of days

2004

2003
30 

Exhibit 31 

Mean number of nonschool hours of library access 

per week: Spring 2003 and 2004 

3.5

2.8

3.8

5.1

0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0

Nongrantees

Grantees

Number of hours

2004

2003

might be estimated as a change of at least 0.8 hours, and the increase of 2.6 days among grantees might be 

estimated as a change of at least 5.2 hours. 

A regression analysis can be used to help confirm the relationship between grantee status and 

opening the library for extended hours. By this measure, all schools shared a non-statistically significant 

increase of 0.6 hours from 2003 to 2004, and the grantee schools showed an additional and statistically 

significant increase of 2.2 hours. With regard to the number of days the school library was open during 

the summer, all schools shared a statistically significant increase of 1.1 days, and grantees schools showed 

an additional statistically significant increase of 2.3 days. 

In addition to examining the total 

number of hours the libraries were open, 

one can examine more specifically the 

number of nonschool hours the libraries 

were open. Here the nongrantees initially 

started with a small (but statistically 

insignificant) advantage prior to the 

grants, being open for a mean of 3.5 

nonschool hours per week compared with 

2.8 among grantees (Exhibits 31, A-23, 

and A-24). During the grant year of 

2003–04, however, the grantees were 

open for a greater number of nonschool 

hours (5.1 versus 3.8). 

The changes were even more 

pronounced if one looks at how many 

schools decided to begin to provide 

access to school libraries during 

nonschool hours. Among nongrantees, only 3 percent of all schools were in the position of having 

changed their practice, providing access in 2004 after not providing access in 2003. By contrast, 

37 percent of all grantee schools fell within this category (Exhibits 32 and A-23). 

Exhibit 32 

Provision of access during nonschool hours, by grantee status: Spring 2003 and 2004 

20%

37%

42%

Both years

2003 only

2004 only

Neither year

Grantee

48%

3% 1%

48%

Nongrantee

NOTE: Percents may not add to 100 because of rounding. 
31 

Exhibit 33 

Uses of extended hours during 2003–04 school year 

81

18

91

40

75

34

95

58

0 20 40 60 80 100

Other

Book clubs

Open to loan

books

Specific

programs

Percent

Grantees

Nongrantees

Besides having more extended 

hours in 2003–04, in some ways the 

grantees also used them differently. 

They were significantly more likely to 

use the hours to offer specific programs 

such as tutorials on search techniques 

(58 percent versus 40 percent) and for 

book clubs (34 percent versus 

18 percent) (Exhibits 33 and A-25). 

 Usage of the library 

As noted earlier, whether because 

of offering increased access to the library 

through extended hours or by making 

library usage more attractive (through 

training students on how to use it, better 

materials, etc.), one logical sign of 

improvements in school libraries is 

increased usage. In terms of the number 

of visits to the library, there were no 

significant differences between grantee 

and non-grantee schools in 2003 or 2004 

(Exhibits 34 and A-26). Only the 

grantees showed a statistically 

significant increase from 2003 to 2004; 

the increase of 0.11 visits per student per 

week was insignificant when performing 

a comparison of means but significant 

when using a more powerful test 

(regression analysis). The change might 

appear too small to be worth noting, but 

if multiplied by the number of weeks in 

a school year and the number of students 

at the school, it could add up to a 

substantial number of additional library 

visits. 

Though grantees appeared to have 

a greater mean number of books checked 

per student for both years than 

nongrantees, the differences were not 

statistically significant. Also, neither 

grantees nor nongrantees showed statistically significant changes from 2003 to 2004.6

 

 

6

 Three school libraries gave responses that appeared highly inconsistent with their other school statistics. These three responses 

were ignored because of questions about their reliability. 

Exhibit 34 

Mean usage of library resources per student: 

Spring 2003 and 2004 

1.5

2.3

1.6

1.1

1.7

2.5

1.6

1.2

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3

Nongrantees

Grantees

Nongrantees

Grantees

2004

2003

Mean visits in 

typical full week

Mean number of 

materials checked out
32 

 Services Offered 

If the grants were associated with 

changes in school libraries, one might 

expect that the change would be 

exhibited in part through the services 

offered by the libraries. However, here 

one must be careful in how the 

measurements are performed. Some of 

the data collected in this report suggest 

that the school libraries receiving grants 

under this program were disadvantaged 

not only with respect to school libraries 

in general (as might be expected, based 

on the eligibility standards), but also 

with respect to other districts meeting the 

eligibility criteria (in terms of the level 

of poverty in the school district). To 

properly estimate the influence of the 

grants, one needs to examine changes 

over time rather than simply comparing 

grantees and nongrantees in 2003–04. 

For example, a finding that grantees and 

nongrantees offered similar services in 

2003–04 may sometimes be a positive 

sign, if the grants were used to help the 

school libraries overcome a previous 

deficit. In fact, this appears to be what 

happened. 

In terms of current levels of 

services, there was little difference 

between grantees and nongrantees 

(Exhibits 35, A-27, and A-28). One 

exception that was statistically 

significant is that grantees were slightly 

more likely on a monthly basis to assist 

teachers with research projects for 

students. 

Exhibit 35 

Percentage of school libraries offering selected 

services at the highest listed level of frequency 

during the 2003–04 school year 

10

12

49

36

36

26

23

54

76

10

8

49

44

47

27

17

60

81

0 20 40 60 80 100

Coordinate training on

technology 

Team meetings 

Assist teachers with research

projects for students 

Help with sources outside the

school 

-Teachers 

Reference assistance to:

Percent

Grantees

Nongrantees

Monthly services

Daily services

-Students

-Administrators

Work on curriculum issues

Coordinate textbook selection
33 

A different story emerges when 

one examines changes in the school 

library services. Using this measure, 

there were substantial and positive 

differences between the grantees and 

nongrantees with regard to 12 different 

kinds of services (Exhibits 36, 37, and 

A-29 through A-31). For example, 

looking at those areas with differences 

of 15 percentage points or greater, 

grantees were more likely than 

nongrantees to have new or expanded 

programs in each of the following 

areas: assisting teachers with research 

projects for students (52 percent versus 

30 percent), working with the principal 

and teachers on curriculum issues 

(43 percent versus 23 percent), and 

providing an after-school program with 

a library orientation (42 percent versus 

9 percent). It is especially interesting 

that the first two of these showed no 

significant differences when comparing 

current services, but differences of 

20 percentage points or higher when 

examined in terms of new or expanded 

programs. Thus, at least with regard to 

services, receiving the grants has 

primarily been associated with 

reducing or eliminating deficits in 

services, and only sometimes with 

raising them above average levels of 

services (i.e., when compared to other 

disadvantaged school libraries). 

Exhibit 36 

Percent of school libraries providing new or expanded 

general programs or services in 2003–04 compared to 

2002–03, by grantee status 

9

9

55

38

10

37

43

52

5

46

28

27

23

30

0 20 40 60 80 100

Junior scholars after-school programs

Instruction on information skills

Coordinate training on technology

Coordinate textbook selection

Participate in team meetings

Work on curriculum issues

Assist with research projects

Grantees

Nongrantees

Percent

Exhibit 37 

Percent of school libraries providing new or expanded 

programs related to reading or English 

in 2003–04 compared to 2002–03, by grantee status 

38

24

42

29

21

27

30

51

23

16

14

15

9

14

0 20 40 60 80 100

Grantees

Nongrantees

Work with classroom teachers on:

Other programs

Selecting resources

Evaluate reading/

English curriculum

Curriculum development

Teach reading/English

Family literacy nights

After-school programs with

library orientation

Book clubs

Percent
34 

Another way of summarizing the 

change in programs is to count the 

number of programs that each school 

library established or expanded in 

2003–04. Grantees had significantly 

greater increases of both types: they had 

a greater mean number of new programs 

(3.4 versus 2.4) and expanded programs 

(1.2 versus 0.5) than did nongrantees 

(Exhibit 38). 

Staffing of School Libraries 

While the grant program was not 

directly intended to affect school library 

staffing, the provision of extended hours 

and increased services might require 

obtaining additional staff. In fact, no 

change appeared among either grantees 

or nongrantees in the number of fulltime staff, and the small increase in the 

number of part-time staff among 

grantees (from a mean of 0.5 in 2003 to 

0.7 in 2004) was statistically insignificant (Exhibits 39, 40, and A-32). The 

small decrease in the number of pupils 

per librarian among grantees, from 461.9 

to 437.6, was statistically insignificant, 

and there was essentially no change 

among nongrantees. By other measures, 

the grantees had more limited resources 

in terms of staffing than nongrantees: 

the number of pupils per librarian was 

higher both in 2003 (461.9 versus 396.2) 

and in 2004 (437.6 versus 393.0). 

Grantees in rural areas did have lower 

numbers of pupils per librarian than 

grantees in other locations. In 2004, the 

number of pupils per librarian among 

grantees was 278.6 in rural areas 

compared to 436.7 in towns, 474.7 in 

cities, and 533.0 in urban fringe areas. 

Professional Development Related to 

School Libraries 

Since professional development 

was one of the emphases of the grant, 

one might expect the grantees to show a 

Exhibit 38 

Mean number of programs or services that were added 

or expanded in 2003–04, by grantee status 

0.5

2.4

1.2

3.4

0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0

Expanded

program

New program

Mean number of programs

Grantees

Nongrantees

Exhibit 39 

Mean number of school library staff, by grantee status: 

Spring 2003 and 2004 

0.5

0.5

1.2

1.1

0.5

0.7

1.2

1.1

0 0.5 1 1.5

Nongrantees

Grantees

Nongrantees

Grantees

Mean number of staff

2004

2003

Full-time staff

Part-time staff

Exhibit 40 

Mean number of pupils per librarian, by grantee status: 

Spring 2003 and 2004 

396.2

461.9

393.0

437.6

0 100 200 300 400 500

Nongrantees

Grantees

Pupils per librarian

2004

2003
35 

greater participation in professional development. More specifically, according to the legislation, the 

grants were intended to provide professional development to “foster increased collaboration between 

school library media specialists, teachers, and administrators” (Section 1251 (g) (4)). 

The survey confirmed that 

professional development activities were 

widespread among the grantees, although 

professional development was common 

among nongrantees as well: 76 percent of 

grantees had staff participating in 

professional development related to school 

libraries, which was significantly more 

than the 67 percent among nongrantees 

(Exhibit A-33). Among those schools that 

did have staff participating in professional 

development, the differences in the 

number of staff were insignificant, 

probably in part because there was little 

variation in the number of staff in many of 

the categories (e.g., in the number of 

principals per school and the number of 

school library media specialists). Even the 

apparent difference in involvement of 

classroom teachers, with a mean of 14.1 

for grantees compared with 11.1 for 

nongrantees, was statistically insignificant 

(Exhibit 41). Grantees in rural areas had a 

lower number of classroom teachers 

involved (a mean of 5.7) than grantees in 

either cities (16.1) or towns (22.3). 

There generally was little difference 

between grantees and nongrantees in what 

topics were covered in the professional 

development activities. However, grantees 

were more likely than nongrantees to cover 

methods in which teachers and school 

library media specialists can collaborate, 

which was the area of professional 

development that was addressed by the 

grants (88 percent versus 75 percent) 

(Exhibits 42, A-34, and A-35). 

Exhibit 41 

Mean number of staff participating in 

professional development, by grantee status: 

2003–04 school year 

0.5

1.5

0.8

1.0

0.7

0.5

1.5

14.1

0.9

1.1

0.8

11.1

0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0 16.0

Other

Classroom

teachers

Library media

specialists

Mean number

Grantees

Nongrantees

Principals

Reading specialists

Paraprofessionals

Exhibit 42 

Percentage of school libraries covering selected topics in 

professional development activities, by grantee status: 

2003–04 school year 

56

66

75

92

73

72

65

88

93

80

0 20 40 60 80 100

Other

Teaching children to read

Methods of collaboration

Integrating technology into class

Select books aligning with

curriculum

Percent

Grantees

Nongrantees
36 

Collaboration with Teachers 

One of the characteristics of 

effective libraries is the degree to which 

the library staff collaborate with teachers 

on the curriculum. Reading and 

language arts, the area that was the 

primary focus of the grant program, was 

also the primary area in which library 

staff collaborated frequently 

(i.e., weekly) with classroom teachers 

(Exhibits 43, A-36, and A-37). Grantees 

were significantly more likely to report 

such collaboration (70 percent), but most 

nongrantees also reported weekly 

collaboration in this area (59 percent). In 

other subject areas, there was no 

significant difference between grantees 

and nongrantees (1 to 4 percentage 

points), and substantial differences 

between most of the subject areas. 

English was the next highest area of 

weekly collaboration (42 to 46 percent), followed by social studies (28 to 29 percent), science 

(23 percent), and mathematics (9 to 11 percent).7

 

Because reading or English is the 

primary focus of the grant program, the 

questionnaire asked for additional 

information on services provided by 

school library staff to classroom teachers 

in that area. Of the four areas examined, 

grantees were most likely to work with 

teachers in selecting and evaluating 

library media resources (87 percent), and 

nongrantees were quite similar 

(84 percent) (Exhibits 44, A-38, and 

A-39). Though grantees appeared to 

show higher rates of collaboration than 

nongrantees, only one of the differences 

was statistically significant. The one 

statistically significant difference is that 

grantees were more likely to work with 

teachers in curriculum development 

(67 percent versus 55 percent). 

 

7

 The difference between social studies and science was not statistically significant. 

Exhibit 43 

Percentage of school libraries with library staff 

working with classroom teachers on a weekly basis: 

2003–04 school year 

29

23

11

42

59

28

23

9

46

70

0 20 40 60 80 100

Social studies

Mathematics

Reading/language

arts

Percent

Grantees

Nongrantees

English

Science

Exhibit 44 

Percentage of school libraries providing selected 

services to classroom teachers in reading or English: 

2003–04 school year 

37

48

55

84

45

56

67

87

0 20 40 60 80 100

Collaborative

evaluation

Collaborative

teaching

Curriculum

development

Selecting

resources

Percent

Grantees

Nongrantees
37 

Instruction in information skills can help students make effective use of a school library. It is also 

an area in which school librarians and classroom teachers might collaborate. There was no difference 

between grantees and nongrantees in whether such instruction was offered, in fact, only 4 percent failed to 

provide it in both groups (Exhibits 45 and A-40). There also was little difference in who provided the 

instruction: library media specialists were highly likely to provide such instruction at both grantee 

(87 percent) and nongrantee (84 percent) schools, as also were classroom teachers (79 percent of grantees 

and 82 percent of nongrantees) (Exhibit 46). The one difference that appeared was that grantees were 

slightly more likely than nongrantees to provide the instruction in two ways—both separately and 

integrated into the curriculum—rather than only one (Exhibit 45). That is, 52 percent of grantees 

provided it in both ways, compared with 42 percent of nongrantees. 

Exhibit 45 

Percent of grantee and nongrantee schools providing instruction in information skills, by where 

that instruction was provided: 2003–04 school year 

37% 52%

4%

Both separately

and integrated

into curriculum

Separate course

only

Integrated into

curriculum only

Neither

Grantee

8%

44%

10%

42%

Nongrantee

4%

NOTE: Percents may not add to 100 because of rounding. 

Libraries That Received Grants 

for Two Years 

Six districts received LSL grants 

for two successive years, and collectively 

accounted for 98 of the 628 school 

libraries receiving LSL grants in 2003–

04. Potentially, data from these schools 

can be used to measure both how the LSL 

program has changed and what changes 

are associated with participating in the 

program for two years. However, given 

the small number of such districts, the 

data may not be representative of what 

might happen if the grants were repeated 

for multiple years across a broader range 

of schools. Also, with only 40 

respondents having received grants for 

two years, the standard errors tend to be 

high, so that differences in responses 

often are not statistically significant. 

Exhibit 46 

Percent of grantee and nongrantee school libraries 

reporting that various personnel provided instruction on 

information skills: 2003–04 school year 

28

82

84

28

79

87

0 20 40 60 80 100

Other

Classroom teachers

Library media specialists

Percent

Grantees

Nongrantees
38 

This section does not attempt to review all of the questionnaire items but rather discusses only selected 

items where the differences were especially large. The data used here differ slightly from the appendix 

exhibits by including separate estimates for schools receiving grants only for the 2003–04 school year.8 

The extra data are included here to allow better differentiation of the two periods of grant involvement. 

 Level of need prior to grants 

The School Library Survey provided data on conditions in the schools in the 2002–03 school year 

(i.e., prior to the receipt of the 2003–04 grants), but not prior to the 2002–03 grants. Compared to both 

the nongrantees and the grantees that received LSL grants only in 2003–04, the school libraries receiving 

two successive LSL grants tended to be more disadvantaged (Exhibit 47). On average, the libraries were 

open for fewer hours in a typical week (27.2 versus 33.8 at nongrantees and 36.3 at schools receiving LSL 

grants for only year) and offered fewer hours of access outside of school hours (1.7 versus 3.0 for other 

grantees and 3.5 for nongrantees). They also appeared to be open for fewer days during the summer, 

though those differences were not statistically significant (2.7 versus 3.7 for other grantee schools and 4.0 

for nongrantees). They had a greater number of pupils per librarian (577.3 versus 396.2 for nongrantees 

and 448.6 for other grantees). One exception to this general trend is that the two-year grantees appeared 

to have higher expenditures for books and subscriptions than both of the other groups of schools, 

consistent with their having received LSL grants in 2002–03 while the other schools did not; however, the 

differences were not statistically significant ($11,491 versus $8,692 for other grantees, and $8,108 for 

nongrantees). 

Exhibit 47. Comparison of library characteristics prior to 2003–04 grants, by grantee status 

Spring 2003 Spring 2004 

Characteristic Received grants for: Received grants for: 

1 year 2 years 

Nongrantees 1 year 2 years Nongrantees 

Mean hours open in typical full week....... 36.3 27.2 33.8 38.6 26.2 34.4 

Mean days open in summer 2003 ............. 3.7 2.7 4.0 6.6 3.6 4.2 

Provided access during nonschool hours 

(percent)............................................. 44.0 33.0 49.0 83.0 49.0 51.0 

Mean number of nonschool hours of 

access................................................. 3.0 1.7 3.5 5.4 3.1 3.8 

Mean number of pupils per librarian ........ 448.6 577.3 396.2 424.3 546.2 393.0 

Mean expenditures on books and 

subscriptions ...................................... $8,692 $11,491 $8,108 $16,413 $11,436 $8,573 

 Conditions after 2003–04 grants 

The two-year grantees continued to lag behind other libraries after receiving the 2003–04 grants. 

They remained behind both groups in the number of hours they were open during a typical week (26.2 

versus 34.4 among nongrantees and 38.6 among other grantees). They did show a statistically significant 

improvement in access during nonschool hours (from 1.7 to 3.1), making them only slightly behind the 

nongrantees (by a statistically insignificant amount) but still behind the other grantees (3.1 versus 5.4), 

which also improved. They remained less well staffed than both groups in the sense that they had a 

higher number of pupils per librarian (546.2 versus 424.3 among other grantees and 393.0 among 

 

8

 The appendix exhibits provide estimates for school that received grants for two years, and for all grantee schools combined, but not for those 

receiving grants for only one year. 
39 

nongrantees). In two areas, improvements among other grantees left the two-year grantees behind by a 

statistically significant amount, despite the lack of statistically significant differences in spring 2003: the 

two-year grantees were open on average for fewer days in the summer (3.6 versus 6.6) and had lower 

mean expenditures on books and subscriptions ($11,436 versus $16,413). 

In sum, the two-year grantees appeared to start out being highly disadvantaged (i.e., more so than even 

other grantees) and remained behind the other grantees after the year in which both groups received 

grants. The receipt of two years of grants may have helped the schools to reach a rough parity with 

nongrantees in some areas (i.e., at least in the sense of the differences not being statistically significant), 

but not in all areas, and the lack of statistical significance was due in part to the low number of such 

schools in the survey. No information is available on whether the disadvantages found among these twoyear grantees are representative of other schools that received grants in 2002–03. It is possible that there 

may have been a selection bias that resulted in them being more disadvantaged (e.g., if only the most 

needy were likely to apply for a second year of the grant, or if only the most needy were approved for a 

second year), so one should be wary of extrapolating these statistics to the larger group of 2002–03 

grantees. 
40 
41 

Chapter 5 

Conclusions 

Several evaluation questions were specified at the start of this study to evaluate the changes 

resulting from the LSL program. Before addressing those questions, however, it is helpful to present the 

study in a larger context, looking first at how grantees compared to nongrantees prior to their receipt of 

the grants, and then looking at evidence for change among grantees following the receipt of the grant. 

These measures of change can then be used to answer the evaluation questions. 

2003 Baseline Information 

Grantee school libraries started at a relative disadvantage when compared with nongrantee school 

libraries: 

• Among those that reported they had conducted needs assessments, grantees were more likely to 

identify needs with regard to having up-to-date materials (97 percent versus 83 percent), 

having the library open for more hours (68 percent versus 36 percent), and having more time 

for planning with teachers (61 percent versus 44 percent). Nongrantees did not have any area 

of need that was greater than grantee need by a statistically significant amount. 

• In spring 2003, grantees were less likely than nongrantees to consider their holdings to be 

either excellent or adequate, both with regard to overall reading or English literature 

(65 percent versus 79 percent), and print materials (62 percent versus 81 percent). 

• One can infer by other measures as well that grantees had inferior book collections in 2002–03. 

That is, they had substantially equivalent numbers of books at the end of 2003–04, but they 

acquired many more books during 2003–04 than nongrantees (a mean of 1,250 versus 730 for 

nongrantees). Thus, either grantees started with fewer books or they performed substantial 

weeding in order to still have equivalent numbers after the acquisitions. 

• Similarly, one can infer than grantees offered fewer services than non-grantees in 2003, based 

on the fact that there was little difference between grantees and nongrantees in 2004, but the 

grantees were more likely to have added or expanded their services than the nongrantees. 

Because all eligible schools were in districts with high poverty rates, one might expect the grantees 

and nongrantees to have been roughly equivalent. The fact that they were not could be an indicator either 

that (1) the program tended to target those schools or districts that were the most disadvantaged (the 

targeting could occur either at the federal level when awarding the grants, or within the districts receiving 

the grants when determining how to designate the participating schools), or (2) disadvantaged districts 

were more likely to apply (e.g., because districts or schools that failed to find needs in a needs assessment 

would have less reason to apply). 
42 

Changes After Receipt of the Grants 

Receipt of the grants appears to have resulted in major changes in the school libraries, bringing 

them up to a level of equality with the nongrantees, or sometimes helping them to surpass the 

nongrantees. Some of the most notable changes were: 

• Grantee schools’ total expenditures almost doubled, while the nongrantees showed no 

significant change. The net result was that after starting out with no significant difference in 

their level of expenditures, the grantees had much higher expenditures after receiving the 

grants. Thus, the district grants resulted in large increases in expenditures at the school level 

and did not appear to supplant local spending for school libraries. 

• They often were more likely than non-grantees to have made changes in response to their needs 

assessment, including getting more up-to-date materials (93 percent versus 68 percent), 

acquiring computer equipment (58 percent versus 41 percent), extending the hours in which the 

library was open (58 percent versus 21 percent), making time for planning with teachers 

(35 percent versus 18 percent), and adding library staff (24 percent versus 8 percent). 

• After starting out behind the nongrantees concerning their holdings in reading or English 

literature and print materials, the grantees moved to a position of relative equality. The 

percentage of grantees with excellent or adequate holdings in reading or English literature 

improved from 65 percent in 2003 to 87 percent in 2004 (compared with 79 percent to 

85 percent among nongrantees), and, for holdings in print materials, from 62 percent to 

85 percent (compared with 81 percent to 83 percent among nongrantees). Grantees also had 

roughly equivalent resources in other areas in spring 2004 (multicultural materials, picture 

books, high-interest low vocabulary materials, online resources, and ESL materials), though no 

measures of change are available to indicate whether they started out being behind the 

nongrantees in 2003. 

• Grantees also acquired substantially more books in 2003–04 than did nongrantees (with means 

of 1,250 and 730 books, respectively), putting them in a position of rough equality in the size 

of their book collections. 

• Grantees were ahead of nongrantees in having automated circulation systems (95 percent 

versus 87 percent), though no measures of their status prior to the grants are available. They 

were roughly equal to nongrantees in the networking of electronic services to locations outside 

the library. 

• Grantees showed significant increases in the hours they were open, both in a typical full week 

in spring, and in the days that the libraries were open in the summer, while the nongrantees 

showed no significant change. The changes were also widely distributed across many school 

libraries rather than being limited to a few that raised the overall mean: 37 percent of grantees 

added access during nonschool hours in 2004 (after not offering access the prior year), 

compared with 3 percent of nongrantees. 

• Grantees showed an increase in library usage, from 1.1 visits per student per week in 2003 to 

1.2 visits in 2004. Using regression analysis, this was a significant difference. The 

nongrantees showed no significant change (a mean of 1.6 in both years). 

• Grantees were more likely than nongrantees to have added or expanded their services in several 

areas, including assisting teachers with research projects for students (52 percent versus 
43 

30 percent), working with the principal and teachers on curriculum issues (43 percent versus 

23 percent), and providing an after-school program with a library orientation (42 percent versus 

9 percent). These increases appeared primarily to bring the grantees to a level of equality in 

services with nongrantees. 

Evaluation Questions 

As discussed in Chapter 1, this study was designed to answer several major evaluation questions. 

Following are the results. 

 How do districts allocate grant funds and are they targeted to schools with the greatest need 

for improved library resources? 

Even when compared with other districts with high poverty levels, it does appear that the funds 

have been targeted to the neediest schools. In fact, because it is likely that the other eligible schools are 

also disadvantaged (because of their high poverty populations) when compared to the general population 

of U.S. public schools, the targeting appears to be to the neediest of the needy schools. 

More than half (58 percent) of the districts receiving grants served all schools in the district. 

Districts could use more than one method to select schools for participation. About one-third (36 percent) 

selected the neediest schools based on lack of library resources, and about one-third (31 percent) chose to 

serve all schools at a particular level. No school selection process was needed for the 14 percent of 

grantee districts containing only one school. 

 How are funds used (e.g., to buy books, improve technology, increase library hours, or 

provide professional development for library and reading staff, etc.)? 

Funds for grantee school libraries roughly doubled from 2002–03 to 2003–04, while funds for 

nongrantees showed no significant change. The great bulk of these expenditures were for materials such 

as books and subscriptions, and particularly for books (78 percent of the funds for materials in 2003–04, 

as compared with other materials such as video materials, CD-ROM titles, or subscriptions). 

Professional development activities related to school libraries were more common among grantees 

than nongrantees (76 percent versus 67 percent). Further, the one topic area that grantees were more 

likely to have covered in their professional development activities—methods in which teachers and 

school library media specialists can collaborate (88 percent for grantees versus 75 percent for 

nongrantees)—was also the area that was specifically addressed by the grants. 

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

coordination? 

Grantees were more likely than nongrantees to have new or expanded services to assist teachers 

with research projects for students (52 percent versus 30 percent), and to have library staff work with the 

principal and teachers on curriculum issues (43 percent versus 23 percent). Both of these are areas where 

the schools apparently were addressing previous deficits in services, because their actual frequency of 

services (after receiving the grants) was quite similar to that for nongrantees. Besides these direct 

indicators of change, one might also infer that the program increased staff collaboration based on 
44 

differences that appeared between grantees and nongrantees in 2003–04 (though no data are available for 

2002–03). 

Grantees were more likely than nongrantees to report collaboration between library staff and 

classroom teachers on reading or language arts (70 percent versus 59 percent), though not in other subject 

areas. More specifically, grantees were more likely to work with classroom teachers in curriculum 

development (67 percent versus 55 percent). 
45 

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, Texas: Hi Willow 

Research and Publishing. 

Burgin, Robert, and Bracy, Pauletta Brown. (June 2003). An Essential Connection: How Quality School 

Library Media Programs Improve Student Achievement in North Carolina. Spring, Texas: Hi 

Willow Research and Publishing. 

Lance, Keith Curry, Rodney, Marcia J., and Hamilton-Pennell, Christine. (2000a). Measuring Up to 

Standards: The Impact of School Library Programs & Information Literacy in Pennsylvania Schools. 

Greensburg, Pa.: Pennsylvania Citizens for Better Libraries. 

Lance, Keith Curry, Rodney, Marcia J., and Hamilton-Pennell, Christine. (2000b). How School 

Librarians Help Kids Achieve Standards: The Second Colorado Study, Executive Summary. 

Colorado Department of Education. Spring, Texas: Hi Willow Research and Publishing. 

Lance, Keith Curry, Rodney, Marcia J., and Hamilton-Pennell, Christine. (2002). How School 

Librarians Improve Outcomes for Children: The New Mexico Study, Executive Summary. Santa Fe, 

N.M.: New Mexico State Library. 

Lance, Keith Curry. (2004). Libraries and Student Achievement: “The importance of school libraries 

for improving student test scores.” Threshold, Winter, pp. 8-9. 

Lance, Keith Curry. (May 1994). The Impact of School Library Media Centers on Academic 

Achievement. ERIC Digest. Syracuse, N.Y.: ERIC Clearinghouse on Information and Technology. 

Lonsdale, Michele. (2003). Impact of School Libraries on Student Achievement: A Review of the 

Research. Melbourne, Australia: Australian Council for Educational Research. 

Pascopelia, Angela. (2005). “Heart of the School.” District Administration, March. 

Scholastic Library Publishing. (N.d.). “School Libraries Work!” Research Foundation Paper, available at 

www.scholastic.com/librarypublishing (accessed March 21, 2005). 

Todd, Ross J., and Kuhlthau, Carol C. (Dec. 15, 2003). “Student Learning Through Ohio School 

Libraries: The Ohio Research Study Fact Sheet.” Columbus, Ohio: Ohio Educational Library Media 

Association. 

Todd, Ross J., and Kuhlthau, Carol C. (Dec. 15, 2003). Student Learning Through Ohio School 

Libraries: A Summary of the Ohio Research Study. Columbus, Ohio: Ohio Educational Library 

Media Association. 

Todd, Ross J., and Kuhlthau, Carol C. (2004). Student Learning Through Ohio School Libraries: 

Background, Methodology and Report of Findings. Columbus, Ohio: Ohio Educational Library 

Media Association. 
46 
A-1 

APPENDIX A 

DETAILED TABLES 
A-2 
A-3 

Exhibit A-1 

Percent of districts using various methods to select schools for participation in the grant and t

distribute grant money to the schools, by district characteristics: 2003–04 school year 

Selecting schoolsa Distributing fun

District characteristic 

District had 

only one 

school 

All schools 

selected Grade level Based on poverty Based on library resources Identified for improvement under NCLB Other All schools equal Per-pupil basis 

 Total............................. 14 58 31 12 36 4 11 33 22 

District enrollment size 

Less than 500 ............... 45 100 0 0 17 0 0 27 9 500–1,999 .................... 17 100 20 0 60 0 0 0 60 2,000 or more............... 4 40 39 17 34 5 16 42 17 

Urbanicity 

City .............................. 0 15 67 17 43 5 17 52 15 Urban fringe................. 27 65 0 10 20 10 15 29 11 Town............................ 11 78 0 22 62 0 11 30 18 Rural ............................ 22 100 20 0 21 0 0 13 42 

Region 

Northeast...................... 0 40 40 20 50 20 0 30 20 Southeast...................... 0 64 29 18 59 0 18 18 52 Central ......................... 31 55 45 0 28 0 0 19 0 West............................. 23 63 22 7 13 0 15 47 10 

Amount of grant 

Up to $100,000 ............ 39 73 16 18 52 9 0 25 17 

$101,000–$200,000 ..... 7 78 20 10 38 5 12 18 29 More than $200,000..... 0 30 49 12 26 0 16 54 18 

NCLB = No Child Left Behind. aDistricts could use more than one method to select schools for participation. 
A-4 

Exhibit A-2 

Percent of districts using various personnel to decide which schools 

to serve, by district characteristics: 2003–04 school year 

District characteristic 

District 

school 

library 

coordinator 

Reading 

curriculum 

coordinator

Superintendent(s) Principal(s)

School 

library 

media 

specialists

Reading 

specialists 

Classroom 

teachers Parents Other

 

 Total ........................ 69 44 75 72 89 31 39 23 30 

District enrollment 

size 

Less than 500........... 36 9 82 91 91 27 64 27 27 

500–1,999................ 67 83 100 83 100 33 67 40 0 

2,000 or more .......... 79 44 66 63 85 31 24 18 39 

 

Urbanicity 

City.......................... 85 35 55 43 83 30 23 23 55 

Urban fringe ............ 51 44 81 100 82 22 42 19 37 

Town ....................... 68 55 80 90 89 30 53 28 0 

Rural........................ 66 48 88 73 100 38 49 25 13 

 

Region 

Northeast ................. 60 70 100 70 80 30 30 30 60 

Southeast ................. 83 58 64 58 94 29 45 28 18 

Central..................... 81 65 84 65 100 35 35 19 0 

West......................... 59 17 68 84 84 30 41 18 36 

 

Amount of grant 

Up to $100,000........ 39 37 83 89 89 37 66 19 31 

$101,000 to 

$200,000 .............. 69 51 84 78 93 30 36 29 21 

More than $200,000 95 44 58 51 84 26 20 20 40 
A-5 

Exhibit A-3 

Percent of districts using various personnel to decide how the grant funds should be spent, 

by district characteristics: 2003–04 school year 

District characteristic 

District 

school 

library 

coordinator 

Reading 

curriculum 

coordinator

Superintendent Principal(s)

School 

library 

media 

specialists

Reading 

specialists

Classroom 

teachers Parents Other 

 

 Total....................... 60 36 56 72 94 45 90 39 26 

District enrollment 

size 

Less than 500 ......... 27 9 73 82 91 55 91 36 9 

500–1,999............... 40 60 80 80 100 20 100 40 20 

2,000 or more ......... 74 38 45 68 94 49 87 40 32 

 

Urbanicity 

City......................... 85 30 28 47 95 40 90 27 38 

Urban fringe ........... 43 29 48 93 89 59 93 40 36 

Town ...................... 40 58 72 90 89 30 80 34 18 

Rural....................... 55 35 87 75 100 51 93 55 7 

 

Region 

Northeast................ 50 40 40 50 90 30 70 10 70 

Southeast................ 66 53 59 82 100 35 88 46 6 

Central.................... 62 43 67 43 100 33 100 19 38 

West ....................... 59 22 57 84 90 62 96 52 17 

 

Amount of grant 

Up to $100,000....... 19 17 63 81 94 50 87 37 13 

$101,000 to 

$200,000............. 61 43 64 82 93 34 91 34 36 

More than 

$200,000................. 91 44 42 55 95 54 91 46 26 
A-6 

Exhibit A-4 

Total grant funding, and the percent of funding spent by category, 

by district characteristics: 2003–04 school year 

District characteristic 

Total 

funding in 

dollars 

Acquisition 

of advanced 

technology

Acquisition 

of all other 

resources 

Linkage to 

Internet and 

other 

networks 

Professional 

development 

Operating 

center in 

nonschool 

hours 

Other 

 

 Total ......................................... 11,260,681 11 68 3 1 11 6 

 

District enrollment size 

Less than 500............................ 686,812 19 59 2 1 14 6 

500–1,999................................. 1,522,952 4 78 0 0 13 3 

2,000 or more ........................... 9,050,917 12 66 4 1 11 6 

 

Urbanicity 

City........................................... 5,434,510 9 68 3 2 11 6 

Urban fringe ............................. 2,044,210 16 63 6 0 11 4 

Town ........................................ 1,817,086 14 77 2 0 5 2 

Rural......................................... 1,964,876 10 62 0 1 18 9 

 

Region 

Northeast .................................. 2,336,255 3 66 11 1 12 5 

Southeast .................................. 3,510,300 12 68 1 1 11 6 

Central...................................... 1,383,317 10 74 0 5 8 4 

West.......................................... 4,030,810 15 66 1 1 12 6 

 

Amount of grant 

Up to $100,000............... 1,123,952 17 59 1 1 14 8 

$101,000 to $200,000..... 3,594,823 10 75 4 0 6 5 

More than $200,000 ....... 6,541,906 11 65 3 2 13 6 
A-7 

Exhibit A-5 

Receipt of outside funding during the 2003–04 school year, by school characteristics 

Percent participating in federal education programs Percent receiving funding 

School characteristic Reading 

First* 

Early Reading 

First* 

Comprehensive

School Reform Title I Other State allotment Corporate donors 

p

 Total................................... 16 1 11 80 31 53 4 Nongrantees............................... 17 1 11 80 31 53 4 

Grantees..................................... 15 4 15 85 46 51 4 

Received grant for 2 years ..... 42 11 12 88 34 42 0 School enrollment size 

400 or less.......................... 19 5 12 93 60 50 3 

401–700 ............................. 16 5 14 85 39 47 4 More than 700.................... 9 0 20 72 36 56 5 

School level 

Elementary......................... 20 4 14 95 47 44 3 Middle/junior high ............. 12 4 22 79 41 54 2 High school/combined/ 

other............................... 6 2 10 65 47 63 9 

Urbanicity 

City .................................... 16 4 16 84 38 35 3 Urban fringe....................... 20 0 14 93 55 64 3 

Town.................................. 16 4 4 70 35 67 0 Rural .................................. 12 4 18 87 69 75 10 

Free/reduced-price lunch eligibility 

Less than 50 percent .......... 14 5 11 68 32 47 5 50 percent or more ............. 16 3 16 90 49 52 4 

Total expenditures per student 

$12.00 or less..................... 13 2 13 81 55 42 1 

$12.01–$20.00 ................... 11 5 21 80 41 52 3 

More than $20.00............... 22 4 10 93 39 59 7 

Total FTE staff 

1.25 or less......................... 18 4 18 90 57 46 3 1.26–1.75 ........................... 13 2 4 81 26 50 2 More than 1.75................... 13 3 15 76 40 60 7 

FTE = full-time equivalent. *These programs ordinarily are limited to elementary schools, but also may be at combined schools (e.g., those with a grade range from prekinderga

the case of Early Reading First) conceivably at other schools with preschool programs (e.g., to support students who have children). 
A-8 

Exhibit A-6 

Mean expenditures in school libraries and percent change of those expenditures 

between the 2002–03 and 2003–04 school years, by school characteristics 

Materials such as books and 

subscriptions 

Computer hardware, other than 

communications equipment Audiovisual equipment 

School characteristic 

2002–03 2003–04 Percent change 2002–03 2003–04 Percent change 2002–03 2003–04 Percent change 2002

 Total.................................... $8,140 $8,854 9 $3,821 $3,205 -16 $922 $999 8 $13,14Nongrantees................................ 8,108 8,573 6 3,901 3,176 -19 937 1,002 7 13,207 Grantees...................................... 8,958 15,845 77 1,836 3,950 115 550 918 67 11,543 

Received grant for 2 years ...... 11,491 11,436 0 3,844 1,728 -55 226 400 77 15,645 School enrollment size 

400 or less........................... 6,103 13,807 126 1,369 2,778 103 352 649 84 8,125 

401–700 .............................. 9,292 15,871 71 1,741 5,092 192 611 1,010 65 11,029 

More than 700..................... 12,907 18,977 47 2,753 4,414 60 771 1,218 58 17,662 

School level 

Elementary.......................... 8,846 13,647 54 1,250 3,633 191 363 618 70 10,578 Middle/junior high .............. 9,064 18,586 105 2,977 2,782 -7 848 1,235 46 13,531 High school/other................ 9,147 19,004 108 2,225 5,813 161 724 1,352 87 12,053 

Urbanicity 

City ..................................... 9,575 13,363 40 1,425 2,377 67 467 614 31 11,525 Urban fringe........................ 12,399 17,565 42 2,502 8,269 230 454 1,009 122 16,463 

Town................................... 4,952 27,640 458 3,580 4,932 38 811 1,132 40 8,874 Rural ................................... 7,433 16,306 119 1,719 4,511 162 715 1,532 114 10,318 

Free/reduced-price lunch eligibility 

Less than 50 percent ........... 9,980 18,189 82 2,252 3,083 37 632 878 39 12,622 50 percent or more .............. 8,667 15,174 75 1,728 4,193 143 526 931 77 11,254 

Total expenditures per student 

$12.00 or less...................... 4,236 14,460 241 301 3,681 1123 343 761 122 4,722 

$12.01–$20.00 .................... 7,920 13,315 68 1,775 2,508 41 579 947 63 11,536 

More than $20.00................ 14,293 19,294 35 3,364 5,238 56 735 1,049 43 18,295 

Total FTE staff 

1.25 or less.......................... 7,437 13,670 84 1,086 3,841 254 339 786 132 9,155 1.26–1.75 ............................ 9,749 18,026 85 2,077 4,913 137 720 1,037 44 12,002 

More than 1.75.................... 11,350 18,596 64 3,315 3,400 3 841 1,095 30 16,099 

FTE = Full-time equivalent. aThe 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 
A-9 

Exhibit A-7 

Mean expenditures for all materials in the 2002–03 and 2003–04 school years and distribution 

of 2003–04 expenditures among selected materials, by school characteristics 

Distribution of 2003–04 expenditures (percent of 

School characteristic Total in 2002–03 Total in 2003–04 Books Video materials CD-ROM titles Print or microform 

subscriptions 

E

sub

 Total............................................ $8,140 $8,854 69 8 2 9 Nongrantees........................................ 8,108 8,573 69 8 2 9 Grantees.............................................. 8,958 15,845 78 4 1 4 Received grant for 2 years .................. 11,491 11,436 77 5 1 4 

School enrollment size 

400 or less................................... 6,103 13,807 77 5 2 4 401–700 ...................................... 9,292 15,871 80 4 1 4 More than 700............................. 12,907 18,977 79 5 1 5 

School level 

Elementary.................................. 8,846 13,647 79 4 2 4 Middle/junior high ...................... 9,064 18,586 84 4 0 3 High school/combined/other....... 9,147 19,004 72 6 2 5 

Urbanicity 

City ............................................. 9,575 13,363 80 4 1 5 Urban fringe................................ 12,399 17,565 75 4 2 2 Town........................................... 4,952 27,640 77 4 0 2 Rural ........................................... 7,433 16,306 76 6 2 4 

Free/reduced-price lunch eligibility 

Less than 50 percent ................... 9,980 18,189 78 4 1 5 50 percent or more ...................... 8,667 15,174 79 4 2 4 

Total expenditures per student 

$12.00 or less.................................. 4,236 14,460 81 4 1 5 

$12.01–$20.00 ................................ 7,920 13,315 81 3 1 4 More than $20.00............................ 14,293 19,294 74 5 2 4 

Total FTE staff 

1.25 or less...................................... 7,437 13,670 78 4 2 4 1.26–1.75 ........................................ 9,749 18,026 78 3 1 4 More than 1.75................................ 11,350 18,596 80 5 1 5 

FTE = full-time equivalent. NOTE: Percents may not add to 100 because of rounding. 
A-10 

Exhibit A-8 

Percent of school libraries that conducted a needs assessment in the last two years, and percent 

those libraries that identified particular needs, by school characteristics: Fall 2004 

Percent identifying need 

School characteristic Conducted 

assessment More staff More non- English materials More up- to-date materials More time for planning More space More computer equipment Rewiring the library Flexible scheduling M

profes

develo

 Total............................................ 34 46 54 84 45 33 68 32 48 56 Nongrantees........................................ 33 46 55 83 44 33 68 32 48 56 Grantees.............................................. 51 58 42 97 61 40 72 33 50 60 

Received grant for 2 years .............. 35 70 36 100 71 66 41 34 55 60 

School enrollment size 

400 or less................................... 57 61 37 96 57 45 69 26 47 58 401–700 ...................................... 47 61 41 98 62 33 67 36 52 64 

More than 700............................. 47 47 54 98 67 42 82 41 50 57 

School level 

Elementary.................................. 51 61 40 95 60 41 62 30 56 55 

Middle/junior high ...................... 48 56 50 100 69 42 82 43 44 63 

High school/combined/other....... 54 52 42 98 57 36 84 30 37 67 

Urbanicity 

City ............................................. 46 54 43 94 61 38 62 27 49 52 

Urban fringe................................ 56 69 64 100 59 54 92 27 68 75 

Town........................................... 57 43 43 100 70 31 60 36 47 73 

Rural ........................................... 56 65 24 100 56 42 84 48 41 58 

Free/reduced-price lunch eligibility 

Less than 50 percent ................... 42 54 39 94 69 30 72 41 40 66 

50 percent or more ...................... 53 59 43 98 59 42 71 31 52 58 

Total expenditures per student 

$12.00 or less.............................. 50 60 49 98 59 44 71 40 50 57 

$12.01–$20.00 ............................ 45 52 32 98 58 36 76 28 34 58 

More than $20.00........................ 57 61 43 95 65 39 68 30 60 63 

Total FTE staff 

1.25 or less.................................. 53 64 41 96 62 42 67 32 55 59 1.26 –1.75 ................................... 55 68 44 100 60 33 79 24 39 58 

More than 1.75............................ 42 31 44 98 60 40 78 45 43 64 

FTE = full-time equivalent. 
A-11 

Exhibit A-9 

Percent of school libraries that made changes as the result of a needs assessment 

in the last two years, by school characteristics: Fall 2004 

School characteristic More staff More non- English materials More up- to-date materials More time for planning More space More computer equipment Rewiring the library Flexible scheduling More professio

developm

 Total ............................................ 9 39 70 19 14 42 22 31 48 

Nongrantees......................................... 8 39 68 18 14 41 22 32 48 Grantees............................................... 24 35 93 35 13 58 20 29 49 

Received grant for 2 years............... 37 30 81 25 17 21 16 33 46 School enrollment size 

400 or less.................................... 25 32 96 36 15 52 22 26 48 

401–700....................................... 28 34 92 31 10 59 13 26 53 More than 700 ............................. 15 43 90 38 12 67 28 38 48 

School level 

Elementary .................................. 22 34 92 39 12 46 19 27 47 

Middle/junior high....................... 32 42 95 35 12 73 25 34 45 High school/combined/other........ 21 35 93 26 16 72 21 29 59 

Urbanicity 

City.............................................. 18 33 90 41 10 42 16 28 42 

Urban fringe ................................ 34 60 90 23 20 88 15 42 64 Town ........................................... 25 43 100 32 3 50 30 32 61 Rural............................................ 29 24 98 28 18 77 30 20 49 

Free/reduced-price lunch eligibility 

Less than 50 percent .................... 23 33 91 33 8 65 24 32 49 

50 percent or more....................... 24 36 93 35 14 56 20 28 50 

Total expenditures per student 

$12.00 or less............................... 19 39 92 26 14 59 27 25 47 

$12.01–$20.00............................. 24 24 94 40 8 61 16 26 46 More than $20.00 ........................ 28 40 93 40 15 54 18 35 54 

Total FTE staff 

1.25 or less................................... 26 33 92 38 14 51 19 29 48 

1.26–1.75..................................... 29 36 100 24 5 75 16 30 53 More than 1.75 ............................ 11 41 88 37 17 57 29 28 51 

FTE = full-time equivalent. 
A-12 

Exhibit A-10 

Percent of school libraries’ holdings that support the instructional program in English, 

by degree of adequacy, grantee status, and type of material: Spring 2003 and 2004 

Excellent Adequate Inadequate 

Grantee status and type of material Spring 

2003 

Spring 

2004 

Spring 

2003 

Spring 

2004 

Spring 

2003 

Spring 

2004 

Grantee 

Overall reading/English collection .... 14 32 50 55 35 13 

Print materials ................................... 13 27 49 58 38 15 

Video/audiovisual materials .............. 10 15 46 53 44 32 

Computer software ............................ 11 18 42 44 47 38 

 

Nongrantee 

Overall reading/English collection .... 22 25 56 59 21 15 

Print materials ................................... 21 21 60 62 19 17 

Video/audiovisual materials .............. 12 14 52 55 37 31 

Computer software ............................ 10 10 43 45 47 45 

NOTE: Percents may not add to 100 because of rounding. 
A-13 

Exhibit A-11 

Percent of school libraries reporting that their holdings in supporting the instructional program in E

were adequate or excellent in spring 2003 and spring 2004, by school characteristics 

Overall reading/ 

English collection Print materials Video/audiovisual materials 

School characteristic 

Spring 2003 Spring 2004 Spring 2003 Spring 2004 Spring 2003 Spring 2004 S

 Total ................................................... 78 85 80 83 63 69 Nongrantees................................................ 79 85 81 83 63 69 Grantees...................................................... 65 87 62 85 56 68 

Received grant for 2 years...................... 68 77 62 74 43 51 School enrollment size 

400 or less........................................... 62 87 60 88 53 68 

401–700.............................................. 64 86 59 83 55 70 

More than 700 .................................... 70 88 68 84 61 66 

School level 

Elementary ......................................... 66 87 63 87 57 72 Middle/junior high.............................. 66 90 60 85 51 65 High school/combined/other............... 62 84 59 80 57 61 

Urbanicity 

City..................................................... 66 83 65 80 59 65 Urban fringe ....................................... 72 100 65 97 58 64 

Town .................................................. 49 97 52 96 45 87 Rural................................................... 66 86 58 88 51 72 

Free/reduced-price lunch eligibility 

Less than 50 percent ........................... 58 82 59 84 51 63 50 percent or more.............................. 67 88 63 85 57 70 

Total expenditures per student 

$12.00 or less...................................... 60 87 60 85 59 71 

$12.01–$20.00.................................... 56 81 56 81 49 55 More than $20.00 ............................... 77 92 68 88 58 77 

Total FTE staff 

1.25 or less.......................................... 60 83 57 81 51 65 1.26–1.75............................................ 69 92 63 90 54 67 More than 1.75 ................................... 72 91 70 89 67 76 

FTE = full-time equivalent. 
A-14 

Exhibit A-12 

Percent of school libraries reporting the adequacy of their resources in specified areas, 

by grantee status: Spring 2004 

Grantee status Excellent Adequate Inadequate Not applicable 

 

Grantee 

English as a second language ....................... 5 35 38 22 

Multicultural materials ................................. 25 59 15 1 

High-interest low vocabulary ....................... 25 53 20 1 

Picture books/easy readers ........................... 39 42 10 9 

Proprietary online resources/subscriptions ... 25 42 23 10 

 

Nongrantee 

English as a second language ....................... 6 35 40 19 

Multicultural materials ................................. 23 55 20 2 

High-interest low vocabulary ....................... 22 54 22 2 

Picture books/easy readers ........................... 36 41 9 13 

Proprietary online resources/subscriptions ... 22 39 31 9 

NOTE: Percents may not add to 100 because of rounding. 
A-15 

Exhibit A-13 

Percent of school libraries reporting that their resources were excellent or adequate in specified a

by school characteristics: Spring 2004 

English as a second 

language Multicultural materials High-interest low vocabulary Picture books/easy readers 

School characteristic 

Excellent Adequate Excellent Adequate Excellent Adequate Excellent Adequate 

 Total ...................................... 6 35 23 55 22 54 36 41 

Nongrantees................................... 6 35 23 55 22 54 36 41 Grantees......................................... 5 35 25 59 25 53 39 42 

Received grant for 2 years......... 0 34 20 61 10 48 32 42 School enrollment size 

400 or less.............................. 1 26 20 66 22 57 44 43 401–700................................. 7 37 28 53 27 49 42 41 More than 700 ....................... 9 44 28 55 24 55 28 42 

School level 

Elementary ............................ 5 34 23 62 27 52 50 42 Middle/junior high................. 7 37 33 51 23 59 21 54 High school/combined/other.. 4 33 21 58 19 52 27 33 

Urbanicity 

City........................................ 5 36 27 55 26 50 39 42 Urban fringe .......................... 13 50 26 66 35 53 42 47 Town ..................................... 2 29 9 80 25 59 28 45 Rural...................................... 2 25 26 55 16 61 43 40 

Free/reduced-price lunch 

eligibility 

Less than 50 percent .............. 3 35 23 61 13 53 36 40 

50 percent or more................. 6 34 25 58 28 54 40 43 

Total expenditures per student 

$12.00 or less......................... 6 26 23 60 27 50 35 42 $12.01–$20.00....................... 4 35 27 52 22 59 37 39 More than $20.00 .................. 5 43 24 64 25 52 45 46 

Total FTE staff 

1.25 or less............................. 6 26 26 57 25 54 41 44 1.26–1.75............................... 2 53 22 64 23 52 41 42 More than 1.75 ...................... 5 39 25 58 25 53 34 40 

FTE = full-time equivalent. NOTE: Percents are based on schools reporting that the specified area was applicable to their school. 
A-16 

Exhibit A-14 

Recency of copyrights of holdings at school libraries, by school characteristics: Fall 2004 

Most recent world atlas (percent of schools) Most recent general encyclopedia (percent of School characteristic schools) 

2003 or 2004 2001 or 2002 2000 or earlier 2003 or 2004 2001 or 2002 2000 or earlier 

Me

 Total ............................................ 51 20 30 62 18 20 Nongrantees......................................... 51 20 30 62 18 20 Grantees............................................... 51 17 32 67 16 17 

Received grant for 2 years............... 31 26 43 49 22 29 

School enrollment size 

400 or less.................................... 44 16 40 58 17 24 

401–700....................................... 55 15 30 70 15 15 More than 700 ............................. 58 20 22 75 17 9 

School level 

Elementary .................................. 46 19 35 59 20 22 Middle/junior high....................... 58 11 31 80 11 9 High school/combined/other........ 59 16 25 74 13 13 

Urbanicity 

City.............................................. 46 18 36 61 20 19 Urban fringe ................................ 67 7 26 76 12 12 

Town ........................................... 54 19 27 71 15 14 Rural............................................ 53 19 27 73 9 18 

Free/reduced-price lunch eligibility 

Less than 50 percent .................... 60 12 28 78 13 9 

50 percent or more....................... 49 18 33 63 17 19 

Total expenditures per student 

$12.00 or less............................... 54 12 33 68 19 13 

$12.01–$20.00............................. 42 18 40 66 13 21 More than $20.00 ........................ 57 21 23 66 17 17 

Total FTE staff 

1.25 or less................................... 43 18 39 61 17 22 1.26–1.75..................................... 62 15 23 75 10 15 More than 1.75 ............................ 61 15 24 71 21 8 

FTE = full-time equivalent. NOTE: Percents may not add to 100 because of rounding. 
A-17 

Exhibit A-15 

Percent of schools indicating the importance of various factors in their library’s 

choice of books to add during the 2003–04 school year, by grantee status 

Grantee status and factor for choosing 

books Very important Somewhat 

important Not important Not used/not 

applicable 

Grantees 

Books had won awards.................................... 56 39 3 2 

Lost books replaced......................................... 27 58 10 4 

Consultation with classroom teachers ............. 78 18 1 3 

Consultation with reading specialist................ 44 23 2 32 

Categories that become quickly outdated ........ 44 34 14 9 

Strengthen particular subject areas .................. 89 8 1 2 

Other................................................................ 63 8 2 26 

 

Nongrantees 

Books had won awards.................................... 57 34 4 5 

Lost books replaced......................................... 37 53 5 5 

Consultation with classroom teachers ............. 77 17 0 6 

Consultation with reading specialist................ 36 21 4 39 

Categories that become quickly outdated ........ 38 33 15 14 

Strengthen particular subject areas .................. 80 15 1 4 

Other................................................................ 58 10 4 29 

NOTE: Percents may not add to 100 because of rounding. 
A-18 

Exhibit A-16 

Percent of school libraries reporting that various factors were very important when selecting 

books to add to the collection during the 2003–04 school year, by school characteristics 

School characteristic Books had 

won awards

Lost books 

replaced 

Consultatio

n with 

classroom 

teachers 

Consultatio

n with 

reading 

specialist 

Categories 

that become 

quickly 

outdated 

Strengthen 

particular 

subject 

areas 

Other 

 

 Total ........................................ 57 37 77 36 38 81 58 

 

Nongrantees..................................... 57 37 77 36 38 80 58 

Grantees........................................... 56 27 78 44 44 89 63 

Received grant for 2 years........... 50 10 61 46 39 97 73 

 

School enrollment size 

400 or less................................ 52 25 77 46 36 84 53 

401–700................................... 59 26 82 43 51 93 66 

More than 700 ......................... 59 32 76 41 46 94 69 

 

School level 

Elementary .............................. 54 26 79 46 43 89 62 

Middle/junior high................... 64 32 76 44 48 92 75 

High school/combined/other.... 55 27 79 38 42 88 55 

 

Urbanicity 

City.......................................... 59 26 77 42 45 89 68 

Urban fringe ............................ 58 24 79 55 34 94 61 

Town ....................................... 48 45 85 30 50 86 57 

Rural........................................ 53 27 81 47 41 88 52 

 

Free/reduced-price lunch 

eligibility 

 

Less than 50 percent ................ 55 21 80 41 46 95 57 

50 percent or more................... 56 29 78 44 43 88 65 

 

Total expenditures per student 

$12.00 or less........................... 54 30 75 39 46 86 62 

$12.01–$20.00......................... 52 24 79 38 39 93 68 

More than $20.00 .................... 61 28 81 54 45 89 60 

 

Total FTE staff 

1.25 or less............................... 56 28 78 45 46 91 60 

1.26–1.75................................. 54 24 72 44 44 87 67 

More than 1.75 ........................ 58 28 84 41 38 88 65 

FTE = full-time equivalent. 

 
A-19 

Exhibit A-17 

Percent of school libraries reporting that selected kinds of equipment were located 

within the school library, by school characteristics: Fall 2004 

School characteristic Automated circulation 

system 

Video laser disk or DVD Technology to assist 

patrons with disabilities 

 

 Total ............................................ 87 62 15 

 

Nongrantees......................................... 87 62 15 

Grantees............................................... 95 58 15 

Received grant for 2 years............... 100 35 9 

 

School enrollment size 

400 or less.................................... 93 53 13 

401–700....................................... 97 60 15 

More than 700 ............................. 95 65 20 

 

School level 

Elementary .................................. 94 47 10 

Middle/junior high....................... 98 75 25 

High school/combined/other........ 94 73 20 

 

Urbanicity 

City.............................................. 94 55 14 

Urban fringe ................................ 96 44 14 

Town ........................................... 100 72 26 

Rural............................................ 95 71 15 

 

Free/reduced-price lunch 

eligibility 

 

Less than 50 percent .................... 93 64 20 

50 percent or more....................... 96 57 14 

 

Total expenditures per student 

$12.00 or less............................... 93 56 14 

$12.01–$20.00............................. 96 57 12 

More than $20.00 ........................ 97 62 20 

 

Total FTE staff 

1.25 or less................................... 94 48 11 

1.26–1.75..................................... 95 69 21 

More than 1.75 ............................ 87 62 15 

FTE = full-time equivalent. 
A-20 

Exhibit A-18 

Percent of school libraries reporting that various electronic services were available 

on different kinds of networks, by grantee status: Fall 2004 

Grantee status and 

electronic service 

Stand-alone 

computer Library LAN Building-wide 

LAN District WAN Not available 

 

Grantee 

Automated catalogs................... 19 25 24 41 6 

CD-ROMs................................. 44 19 13 16 17 

Internet access........................... 6 12 23 77 2 

E-mail........................................ 6 10 18 78 4 

Electronic full-text periodicals .. 5 14 13 45 36 

 

Nongrantee 

Automated catalogs................... 8 23 23 36 18 

CD-ROMs................................. 44 17 18 12 16 

Internet access........................... 5 12 22 75 3 

E-mail........................................ 5 9 20 75 6 

Electronic full-text periodicals .. 1 10 14 40 39 

LAN = local area network. 

WAN = wide area network. 
A-21 

Exhibit A-19 

Percent of school libraries reporting that various electronic services were networked 

to locations outside of the library, by school characteristics: Fall 2004 

School characteristic Automated 

catalog CD-ROMs Internet access E-mail 

Electronic 

full-text 

periodicals 

 

 Total ............................................ 57 28 90 88 52 

 

Nongrantees......................................... 57 28 90 88 52 

Grantees............................................... 60 27 90 88 53 

Received grant for 2 years............... 97 39 94 88 39 

 

School enrollment size 

400 or less.................................... 51 28 87 85 42 

401–700....................................... 67 30 93 90 64 

More than 700 ............................. 62 21 89 87 54 

 

School level 

Elementary .................................. 62 28 89 86 44 

Middle/junior high....................... 63 24 93 89 61 

High school/combined/other........ 50 26 90 90 67 

 

Urbanicity 

City.............................................. 58 27 88 86 49 

Urban fringe ................................ 62 25 86 88 44 

Town ........................................... 68 20 100 98 58 

Rural............................................ 59 30 91 87 65 

 

Free/reduced-price lunch 

eligibility 

 

Less than 50 percent .................... 66 31 90 90 66 

50 percent or more....................... 58 26 90 87 49 

 

Total expenditures per student 

$12.00 or less............................... 55 27 90 88 51 

$12.01–$20.00............................. 63 24 92 87 51 

More than $20.00 ........................ 61 31 87 87 55 

 

Total FTE staff 

1.25 or less................................... 58 26 90 88 44 

1.26–1.75..................................... 59 31 93 89 67 

More than 1.75 ............................ 64 26 87 86 61 

FTE = full-time equivalent.
A-22 

Exhibit A-20 

Percent of school libraries with computer access to catalogs of other libraries, 

by type of library and school characteristics: Fall 2004 

School characteristic Public library Community 

college library 

College or 

university 

library 

Other school 

libraries in 

district 

School 

libraries 

outside district 

 

 Total .......................................... 62 37 43 49 30 

 

Nongrantees....................................... 61 37 42 49 30 

Grantees............................................. 73 48 56 56 37 

Received grant for 2 years............. 82 51 65 93 27 

 

School enrollment size 

400 or less.................................. 72 52 53 42 35 

401–700..................................... 73 45 58 65 40 

More than 700 ........................... 74 47 57 67 37 

 

School level 

Elementary ................................ 72 46 51 53 35 

Middle/junior high..................... 79 42 58 66 40 

High school/combined/other...... 71 61 64 56 42 

 

Urbanicity 

City............................................ 80 48 54 62 30 

Urban fringe .............................. 77 58 64 68 53 

Town ......................................... 45 42 62 32 44 

Rural.......................................... 62 46 52 43 42 

 

Free/reduced-price lunch 

eligibility 

 

Less than 50 percent .................. 77 49 58 64 30 

50 percent or more..................... 72 48 55 54 39 

 

Total expenditures per student 

$12.00 or less............................. 73 46 53 55 32 

$12.01–$20.00........................... 75 46 57 60 36 

More than $20.00 ...................... 71 54 57 53 44 

 

Total FTE staff 

1.25 or less................................. 72 51 55 51 35 

1.26–1.75................................... 73 43 58 60 36 

More than 1.75 .......................... 75 48 55 64 44 

FTE = full-time equivalent. 
A-23 

Exhibit A-21 

Percent 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 2004 

Method of participation 

School characteristic 

Participated 

in any 

cooperative 

activity 

Borrowing 

materials 

for school 

library 

Borrowing 

materials 

for 

classroom 

teachers 

Informing 

public 

library of 

curriculum/ 

homework 

needs 

Coordinating 

on student 

research 

projects 

Automation 

projects, 

such as 

online 

resources 

Summer 

reading 

program 

 

 Total ............................... 58 61 70 52 51 35 46 

 

Nongrantees............................ 58 60 69 52 51 35 46 

Grantees.................................. 68 67 73 56 49 37 53 

Received grant for 2 years.. 66 63 70 57 42 32 46 

 

School enrollment size 

400 or less....................... 64 74 79 52 57 45 61 

401–700.......................... 72 64 69 53 44 31 53 

More than 700 ................ 66 61 68 64 44 33 42 

 

School level 

Elementary ..................... 69 70 77 45 48 37 62 

Middle/junior high.......... 73 64 69 73 56 30 49 

High school/combined/ 

other............................

58 62 64 67 45 45 31 

 

Urbanicity 

City................................. 72 70 76 51 50 39 60 

Urban fringe ................... 74 52 61 43 48 39 40 

Town .............................. 77 65 66 76 50 14 48 

Rural............................... 48 72 75 72 41 40 41 

 

Free/reduced-price lunch 

eligibility 

 

Less than 50 percent ....... 62 60 65 60 46 33 43 

50 percent or more.......... 69 69 75 54 50 38 56 

 

Total expenditures per 

student 

 

$12.00 or less.................. 64 66 73 54 51 40 50 

$12.01–$20.00................ 67 71 78 56 42 33 53 

More than $20.00 ........... 72 65 69 57 53 37 57 

 

Total FTE staff 

1.25 or less...................... 62 68 78 50 49 39 53 

1.26–1.75........................ 69 66 70 57 53 33 68 

More than 1.75 ............... 78 66 65 64 46 35 45 

FTE = full-time equivalent. 
A-24 

Exhibit A-22 

Mean length of time the school library was open, 

by school characteristics: Spring 2003 and 2004 

Typical full week of school 

(mean number of hours) 

Summer vacation 

(mean number of days) School characteristic 

Spring 

2003 

Spring 

2004 

Percent 

change 

Summer 

2003 

Summer 

2004 

Percent 

change 

 

 Total .......................................... 33.8 34.5 2 4.0 4.3 8 

 

Nongrantees....................................... 33.8 34.4 2 4.0 4.2 5 

Grantees............................................. 35.3 37.1 5 3.6 6.2 72 

Received grant for 2 years............. 27.2 26.2 -4 2.7 3.6 33 

 

School enrollment size 

400 or less.................................. 30.5 32.0 5 3.2 5.8 81 

401–700..................................... 41.6 43.8 5 3.2 6.1 91 

More than 700 ........................... 33.8 35.8 6 4.8 7.0 46 

 

School level 

Elementary ................................ 31.0 32.3 4 3.4 6.0 76 

Middle/junior high..................... 34.2 36.8 8 2.5 4.5 80 

High school/combined/other...... 47.5 49.4 4 5.1 8.5 67 

 

Urbanicity 

City............................................ 31.2 32.6 4 2.8 5.1 82 

Urban fringe .............................. 29.6 31.2 5 6.6 8.9 35 

Town ......................................... 33.9 37.7 11 3.8 5.6 47 

Rural.......................................... 50.9 52.6 3 3.8 7.5 97 

 

Free/reduced-price lunch 

eligibility 

 

Less than 50 percent .................. 32.0 33.9 6 3.2 5.1 59 

50 percent or more..................... 36.2 38.0 5 3.7 6.5 76 

 

Total expenditures per student 

$12.00 or less............................. 40.7 43.8 8 3.3 5.8 76 

$12.01–$20.00........................... 31.6 32.4 3 3.1 5.4 74 

More than $20.00 ...................... 32.9 34.7 5 4.3 7.4 72 

 

Total FTE staff 

1.25 or less................................. 37.8 38.7 2 3.0 5.2 73 

1.26–1.75................................... 32.4 35.6 10 3.2 6.8 113 

More than 1.75 .......................... 32.4 34.9 8 5.2 8.0 54 

FTE = full-time equivalent. 

 
A-25 

Exhibit A-23 

Access to the school library during nonschool hours, 

by school characteristics: Spring 2003 and 2004 

Percentage of schools providing access Mean number of nonschool 

hours of access School characteristic 

Both 

years 

2003 

only 

2004 

only 

Neither 

year 

2003 2004 Percent 

change 

 

 Total .......................................... 48 1 5 47 3.5 3.9 12 

 

Nongrantees....................................... 48 1 3 48 3.5 3.8 8 

Grantees............................................. 42 0 37 20 2.8 5.1 81 

Received grant for 2 years............. 33 0 16 51 1.7 3.1 87 

 

School enrollment size 

400 or less.................................. 40 0 40 20 2.3 4.6 100 

401–700..................................... 32 1 45 22 2.5 5.0 104 

More than 700 ........................... 59 0 22 19 4.1 6.2 50 

 

School level 

Elementary ................................ 35 1 39 25 2.1 4.2 103 

Middle/junior high..................... 43 0 37 20 2.9 5.0 75 

High school/combined/other...... 59 0 32 8 4.7 7.4 58 

 

Urbanicity 

City............................................ 47 1 32 21 3.2 4.5 41 

Urban fringe .............................. 30 0 50 19 1.8 6.4 249 

Town ......................................... 35 0 51 14 3.0 5.6 88 

Rural.......................................... 41 0 38 21 2.5 5.8 129 

 

Free/reduced-price lunch 

eligibility 

 

Less than 50 percent .................. 43 2 37 18 3.7 5.6 51 

50 percent or more..................... 42 0 37 21 2.6 5.0 95 

 

Total expenditures per student 

$12.00 or less............................. 35 1 42 22 2.6 5.2 97 

$12.01–$20.00........................... 37 0 41 22 2.9 4.3 50 

More than $20.00 ...................... 53 0 29 17 3.0 5.7 92 

 

Total FTE staff 

1.25 or less................................. 34 1 40 25 2.4 4.0 69 

1.26–1.75................................... 42 0 39 19 2.5 6.5 155 

More than 1.75 .......................... 58 0 30 13 4.0 6.5 62 

FTE = full-time equivalent. 

NOTE: Percents may not add to 100 because of rounding. 

 
A-26 

Exhibit A-24 

Mean number of nonschool hours of access to school libraries, by time of access and school characteristics: Spr

Spring 2003 Spring 20

School characteristic Total 

hours 

Before 

school 

After 

school Saturday Sunday Total hours Before school After school 

 Total ....................................................... 3.5 1.4 2.2 0.0 0.0 3.9 1.6 2.4 Nongrantees.................................................... 3.5 1.4 2.2 0.0 0.0 3.8 1.6 2.3 Grantees.......................................................... 2.8 1.1 1.7 0.0 0.0 5.1 1.7 3.6 

Received grant for 2 years.......................... 1.7 0.6 1.1 0.0 0.0 3.1 1.0 2.1 

School enrollment size 

400 or less............................................... 2.3 0.7 1.6 0.1 0.0 4.6 1.3 3.4 

401–700.................................................. 2.5 1.0 1.5 0.0 0.0 5.0 1.6 3.6 

More than 700 ........................................ 4.1 1.9 2.3 0.1 0.0 6.2 2.4 3.9 

School level 

Elementary ............................................. 2.1 0.9 1.2 0.0 0.0 4.2 1.5 3.0 Middle/junior high.................................. 2.9 1.1 1.8 0.0 0.0 5.0 1.8 3.5 

High school/combined/other................... 4.7 1.8 2.8 0.2 0.1 7.4 2.2 5.2 

Urbanicity 

City......................................................... 3.2 1.5 1.8 0.0 0.0 4.5 1.6 3.1 Urban fringe ........................................... 1.8 0.6 1.2 0.1 0.0 6.4 2.5 4.5 

Town ...................................................... 3.0 0.8 2.2 0.0 0.0 5.6 2.0 3.4 Rural....................................................... 2.5 0.6 1.8 0.1 0.1 5.8 1.3 4.5 

Free/reduced-price lunch eligibility 

Less than 50 percent ............................... 3.7 2.0 1.8 0.1 0.0 5.6 1.8 3.9 50 percent or more.................................. 2.6 0.9 1.7 0.0 0.0 5.0 1.7 3.5 

Total expenditures per student 

$12.00 or less.......................................... 2.6 1.3 1.3 0.1 0.0 5.2 1.6 3.8 $12.01–$20.00........................................ 2.9 1.0 1.9 0.0 0.0 4.3 1.5 3.1 More than $20.00 ................................... 3.0 1.1 1.9 0.1 0.0 5.7 2.0 3.9 

Total FTE staff 

1.25 or less.............................................. 2.4 0.8 1.6 0.0 0.0 4.0 1.2 2.9 

1.26–1.75................................................ 2.5 1.0 1.5 0.1 0.0 6.5 1.9 4.7 More than 1.75 ....................................... 4.0 1.9 2.2 0.1 0.0 6.5 2.5 4.2 

FTE = full-time equivalent. 
A-27 

Exhibit A-25 

Percent of school libraries using extended hours for various activities 

during the 2003–04 school year, by school characteristics 

School characteristic Specific 

programs 

Open to loan 

books 

Book clubs Other 

 

 Total ...................................................... 41 91 19 80 

 

Nongrantees................................................... 40 91 18 81 

Grantees......................................................... 58 95 34 75 

Received grant for 2 years......................... 53 96 43 81 

 

School enrollment size 

400 or less.............................................. 59 95 41 76 

401–700................................................. 59 96 31 70 

More than 700 ....................................... 56 96 28 79 

 

School level 

Elementary ............................................ 58 94 40 67 

Middle/junior high................................. 56 95 36 86 

High school/combined/other.................. 61 99 20 82 

 

Urbanicity 

City........................................................ 62 96 40 72 

Urban fringe .......................................... 59 91 33 67 

Town ..................................................... 51 95 26 80 

Rural...................................................... 53 97 25 84 

 

Free/reduced-price lunch eligibility 

Less than 50 percent .............................. 59 100 36 74 

50 percent or more................................. 58 94 34 75 

 

Total expenditures per student 

$12.00 or less......................................... 60 95 32 75 

$12.01–$20.00....................................... 63 94 22 81 

More than $20.00 .................................. 52 97 47 70 

 

Total FTE staff 

1.25 or less............................................. 63 93 38 72 

1.26–1.75............................................... 53 98 36 84 

More than 1.75 ...................................... 54 98 25 73 

FTE = full-time equivalent. 

 
A-28 

Exhibit A-26 

Mean usage of school library resources per student, 

by school characteristics: Spring 2003 and 2004 

Usage in typical week Number of materials checked out 

School characteristic Spring 

2003 

Spring 

2004 

Percent 

change 

Spring 

2003 

Spring 

2004 

Percent 

change 

 

 Total .......................................... 1.6 1.6 0 1.5 1.7 13 

 

Nongrantees....................................... 1.6 1.6 0 1.5 1.7 13 

Grantees............................................. 1.1 1.2 9 2.3 2.5 9 

Received grant for 2 years............. 0.9 0.8 -11 0.9 0.9 0 

 

School enrollment size 

400 or less.................................. 1.4 1.5 7 3.0 3.4 13 

401–700..................................... 1.0 1.1 10 2.2 2.5 14 

More than 700 ........................... 0.9 1.0 11 1.2 1.2 0 

 

School level 

Elementary ................................ 1.2 1.3 8 3.2 3.4 6 

Middle/junior high..................... 1.3 1.3 0 1.4 1.8 29 

High school/combined/other...... 0.9 1.0 11 0.8 0.9 13 

 

Urbanicity 

City............................................ 1.0 1.1 10 1.7 1.9 12 

Urban fringe .............................. 1.0 1.1 10 1.4 1.5 7 

Town ......................................... 2.1 2.2 5 5.0 5.9 18 

Rural.......................................... 1.1 1.2 9 3.1 3.5 13 

 

Free/reduced-price lunch 

eligibility 

 

Less than 50 percent .................. 1.4 1.4 0 1.5 1.6 7 

50 percent or more..................... 1.1 1.2 9 2.5 2.8 12 

 

Total expenditures per student 

$12.00 or less............................. 1.2 1.3 8 1.3 1.7 31 

$12.01–$20.00........................... 1.1 1.1 0 1.9 2.2 16 

More than $20.00 ...................... 1.1 1.3 18 3.4 3.6 6 

 

Total FTE staff 

1.25 or less................................. 1.3 1.4 8 2.4 2.7 13 

1.26–1.75................................... 1.0 1.1 10 3.1 3.3 6 

More than 1.75 .......................... 0.9 1.0 11 1.3 1.6 23 

FTE = full-time equivalent. 
A-29 

Exhibit A-27 

Percent of school libraries offering selected services and the frequency of those services, 

by grantee status: 2003–04 school year 

Grantee status and service Frequency of services 

Grantees Daily Weekly Monthly Never Not 

applicable 

 

Reference assistance to: 

 Students............................................................. 81 14 3 0 1 

 Teachers ............................................................ 60 26 10 2 2 

 Administrators................................................... 17 24 32 19 9 

Help with sources outside the school..................... 27 25 32 10 6 

 

 Monthly Quarterly Annually Never Not 

applicable 

 

Assist teachers with research projects for 

students..................................................................

47 20 15 14 4 

Work on curriculum issues.................................... 44 19 16 16 4 

Team meetings ...................................................... 49 21 9 18 3 

Coordinate textbook selection ............................... 8 3 16 45 28 

Coordinate professional development on 

technology .............................................................

10 23 27 28 12 

 

Nongrantees Daily Weekly Monthly Never Not 

applicable 

 

Reference assistance to: 

 Students............................................................. 76 17 4 1 2 

 Teachers ............................................................ 54 33 11 1 1 

 Administrators................................................... 23 16 36 13 12 

Help with sources outside the school..................... 26 26 31 7 10 

 Monthly Quarterly Annually Never Not 

applicable 

 

Assist teachers with research projects for 

students..................................................................

36 22 20 15 7 

Work on curriculum issues.................................... 36 15 25 16 8 

Team meetings ...................................................... 49 16 11 18 6 

Coordinate textbook selection ............................... 12 2 15 47 23 

Coordinate professional development on 

technology .............................................................

10 14 30 28 17 

NOTE: Percents may not add to 100 because of rounding. 
A-30 

Exhibit A-28 

Percent of school libraries reporting that they provide selected services, by the highest listed level of fr

by school characteristics: 2003–04 school year 

Provide services daily Provide services mo

Provide reference assistance to: 

School characteristic 

Students Teachers Admini- strators 

Help use 

information 

outside the 

school 

Assist with 

research 

projects 

Work on 

curriculum 

issues 

Team 

meetings 

 Total ....................................................... 77 54 22 26 36 37 49 Nongrantees.................................................... 76 54 23 26 36 36 49 Grantees.......................................................... 81 60 17 27 47 44 49 

Received grant for 2 years.......................... 71 49 7 14 51 34 35 School enrollment size 

400 or less............................................... 66 50 15 23 32 37 39 401–700.................................................. 88 67 19 32 55 50 55 More than 700 ........................................ 94 66 18 27 60 48 56 

School level 

Elementary ............................................. 74 58 16 25 37 42 45 Middle/junior high.................................. 93 69 21 30 65 51 57 High school/combined/other................... 87 58 16 29 59 43 50 

Urbanicity 

City......................................................... 81 65 20 27 52 47 51 Urban fringe ........................................... 80 59 17 21 49 41 47 Town ...................................................... 82 50 14 35 38 40 56 Rural....................................................... 84 55 13 29 38 41 43 

Free/reduced-price lunch eligibility 

Less than 50 percent ............................... 83 65 18 36 57 48 51 50 percent or more.................................. 80 59 17 24 45 43 48 

Total expenditures per student 

$12.00 or less.......................................... 85 57 20 27 40 39 44 

$12.01–$20.00........................................ 82 61 17 23 53 50 54 More than $20.00 ................................... 76 62 15 31 51 45 49 

Total FTE staff 

1.25 or less.............................................. 78 61 20 26 42 42 43 1.26–1.75................................................ 81 56 11 28 49 44 53 More than 1.75 ....................................... 86 61 17 28 59 48 58 

FTE = full-time equivalent. 
A-31 

Exhibit A-29 

Percent of school libraries indicating changes in their provision of selected services 

in the 2003–04 school year, by grantee status and type of service 

Grantees Nongrantee

Type of service New in 

2003–04 

Expanded 

in 2003–04 No change 

Decreased 

or 

eliminated 

in 2003–04 

Not 

performed 

in either 

year 

New in 

2003–04 

Expanded 

in 2003–04 No change 

Assist in research projects ................ 8 45 31 2 14 6 24 48 

Work on curriculum issues............... 6 37 39 3 15 2 21 56 

Participate in team meetings............. 8 29 43 2 17 5 22 53 Coordinate textbook selection .......... 1 9 26 2 63 1 8 28 

Coordinate professional 

development on technology.......... 9 28 29 3 31 6 22 35 

Work with teachers on resources for 

reading/English ............................ 6 44 38 1 11 3 35 49 

Work with teachers on curriculum 

development in reading/English ... 7 24 44 3 23 3 20 43 

Teach reading/English with 

classroom teachers........................ 6 21 35 3 35 3 13 31 

Evaluate reading/English with 

classroom teachers........................ 5 16 36 2 41 3 11 29 

Instruct on information skills............ 8 47 35 2 8 4 42 45 

Family literacy nights....................... 13 16 22 2 48 7 8 19 Junior scholars after-school 

programs....................................... 4 5 9 0 82 3 3 9 

After-school program with library 

orientation .................................... 23 19 11 2 45 1 7 15 

Book clubs........................................ 13 11 15 2 59 4 10 15 

NOTE: Percents may not add to 100 because of rounding. 
A-32 

Exhibit A-30 

Percent of school libraries providing selected new or expanded general programs 

in the 2003–04 school year, by school characteristics 

School characteristic Assist with research projects Work on curriculum issues Participate in team meetings Coordinate textbook selection Coordinate professional development on technology Instruct

inform

ski

 Total .......................................... 31 24 27 9 28 46 Nongrantees....................................... 30 23 27 9 28 46 

Grantees............................................. 52 43 37 10 38 55 

Received grant for 2 years............. 41 25 24 5 27 52 

School enrollment size 

400 or less.................................. 48 44 33 11 31 46 

401–700..................................... 60 42 40 10 42 61 More than 700 ........................... 50 44 40 6 42 58 

School level 

Elementary ................................ 50 44 38 12 31 53 Middle/junior high..................... 60 41 32 6 46 58 

High school/combined/other...... 52 41 40 6 47 56 

Urbanicity 

City............................................ 54 43 38 11 39 56 Urban fringe .............................. 62 49 36 5 42 60 Town ......................................... 49 46 37 5 32 61 Rural.......................................... 44 40 36 13 34 47 

Free/reduced-price lunch eligibility 

Less than 50 percent .................. 60 49 43 9 45 68 

50 percent or more..................... 50 41 35 10 36 51 

Total expenditures per student 

$12.00 or less............................. 46 39 37 5 39 50 $12.01–$20.00........................... 54 48 40 11 37 58 

More than $20.00 ...................... 58 42 35 13 37 57 

Total FTE staff 

1.25 or less................................. 51 42 35 12 32 51 1.26–1.75................................... 60 47 38 6 48 59 More than 1.75 .......................... 49 41 41 8 43 59 

FTE = full-time equivalent. 
A-33 

Exhibit A-31 

Percent of school libraries providing selected new or expanded programs related to reading or En

in the 2003–04 school year, by school characteristics 

Work with classroom teachers on 

School characteristic Selecting 

resources 

Curriculum 

development 

Teach reading/ 

English 

Evaluate 

reading/ 

English 

curriculum 

Family literacy 

nights 

After

progra

lib

orien

 Total ...................................................... 38 23 17 15 15 1

Nongrantees................................................... 38 23 16 14 15 Grantees......................................................... 51 30 27 21 29 4

Received grant for 2 years......................... 39 26 27 14 17 2School enrollment size 

400 or less.............................................. 47 27 24 20 29 3401–700................................................. 52 34 28 24 30 4More than 700 ....................................... 54 31 32 21 27 3

School level 

Elementary ............................................ 46 26 24 18 33 4Middle/junior high................................. 57 37 35 27 29 3High school/combined/other.................. 56 35 28 27 18 3

Urbanicity 

City........................................................ 46 27 30 21 30 4Urban fringe .......................................... 59 43 25 26 35 5Town ..................................................... 68 34 31 24 38 4Rural...................................................... 48 30 21 18 18 3

Free/reduced-price lunch eligibility 

Less than 50 percent .............................. 52 34 31 24 36 450 percent or more................................. 50 29 26 21 27 4

Total expenditures per student 

$12.00 or less......................................... 51 27 22 22 26 4$12.01–$20.00....................................... 55 28 28 21 27 3More than $20.00 .................................. 47 36 32 22 33 4

Total FTE staff 

1.25 or less............................................. 49 30 27 22 28 41.26–1.75............................................... 53 31 26 17 27 4More than 1.75 ...................................... 52 30 27 24 31 3

FTE = full-time equivalent. 
A-34 

Exhibit A-32 

Mean number of staff per school library and pupils per librarian, 

by school characteristics: Spring 2003 and 2004 

Full-time staff Part-time staffa Mean number of pupils 

per librarian per school School characteristic 

Spring 

2003 

Spring 

2004 

Percent 

change 

Spring 

2003 

Spring 

2004 

Percent 

change 

Spring 

2003 

Spring 

2004 

Percent 

change 

 

 Total ......................................... 1.2 1.2 0 0.5 0.5 0 398.7 394.8 -1 

 

Nongrantees...................................... 1.2 1.2 0 0.5 0.5 0 396.2 393.0 -1 

Grantees............................................ 1.1 1.1 0 0.5 0.7 40 461.9 437.6 -5 

Received grant for 2 years............ 1.0 1.1 10 0.3 0.3 0 577.3 546.2 -5 

 

School enrollment size 

400 or less................................. 0.6 0.7 17 0.8 1.0 25 306.8 285.0 -7 

401–700.................................... 1.1 1.2 9 0.4 0.5 25 443.7 427.1 -4 

More than 700 .......................... 1.7 1.7 0 0.3 0.4 33 706.4 678.0 -4 

 

School level 

Elementary ............................... 0.9 0.9 0 0.6 0.7 17 418.3 402.8 -4 

Middle/junior high.................... 1.2 1.3 8 0.4 0.5 25 587.5 544.9 -7 

High school/combined/other..... 1.5 1.6 7 0.5 0.6 20 451.8 424.7 -6 

 

Urbanicity 

City........................................... 1.1 1.1 0 0.5 0.5 0 490.2 474.7 -3 

Urban fringe ............................. 1.1 1.1 0 0.6 0.8 33 586.5 533.0 -9 

Town ........................................ 1.2 1.2 0 0.5 0.7 40 462.8 436.7 -6 

Rural......................................... 1.0 1.0 0 0.6 0.9 50 301.3 278.6 -8 

 

Free/reduced-price lunch 

eligibility 

 

Less than 50 percent ................. 1.4 1.4 0 0.4 0.5 25 503.7 495.5 -2 

50 percent or more.................... 1.0 1.0 0 0.6 0.7 17 448.6 419.7 -6 

 

Total expenditures per student 

$12.00 or less............................ 1.1 1.1 0 0.4 0.6 50 527.3 505.0 -4 

$12.01–$20.00.......................... 1.1 1.2 9 0.5 0.6 20 475.3 444.8 -6 

More than $20.00 ..................... 1.0 1.1 10 0.7 0.8 14 381.3 362.8 -5 

 

Total FTE staff 

1.25 or less................................ 0.6 0.7 17 0.5 0.7 40 511.1 468.5 -8 

1.26–1.75.................................. 1.0 1.1 10 1.1 1.2 9 361.2 349.8 -3 

More than 1.75 ......................... 2.2 2.2 0 0.2 0.3 50 430.9 434.8 1 

FTE = full-time equivalent. 

a

Part-time staff are treated as half-time. 

 

 
A-35 

Exhibit A-33 

Percent of staff participating in professional development on topics related to school libraries and mea

of staff receiving the professional development, by type of staff and school characteristics: 2003–04 sch

Mean number of staff receiving professional developme

School characteristic 

Percent with 

staff 

participating Principals 

School library 

media 

specialists 

Reading 

specialists 

Classroom 

teachers 

Paraprof

instru

assi

 Total ..................................................... 67 0.7 1.0 0.8 11.2 1Nongrantees.................................................. 67 0.7 1.0 0.8 11.1 1Grantees........................................................ 76 0.8 1.1 0.9 14.1 1

Received grant for 2 years........................ 59 0.2 1.0 0.7 12.2 0School enrollment size 

400 or less............................................. 72 0.8 0.9 0.7 8.4 1

401–700................................................ 73 0.8 1.0 1.0 15.3 1

More than 700 ...................................... 87 0.9 1.3 1.1 19.3 1

School level 

Elementary ........................................... 72 0.8 0.0 0.7 9.9 1Middle/junior high................................ 81 0.8 1.1 1.6 16.6 1High school/combined/other................. 82 0.8 1.3 0.6 21.6 1

Urbanicity 

City....................................................... 76 0.9 1.1 1.0 16.1 1Urban fringe ......................................... 77 0.7 0.0 0.8 11.9 1

Town .................................................... 67 1.0 1.2 1.5 22.3 3Rural..................................................... 81 0.7 0.0 0.5 5.7 0

Free/reduced-price lunch eligibility 

Less than 50 percent ............................. 83 0.9 1.2 0.0 23.4 150 percent or more................................ 74 0.8 1.0 0.9 10.9 1

Total expenditures per student 

$12.00 or less........................................ 74 0.8 1.1 0.7 15.2 0$12.01–$20.00...................................... 73 0.7 1.2 0.9 16.8 2More than $20.00 ................................. 81 0.9 0.0 1.1 11.0 1

Total FTE staff 

1.25 or less............................................ 71 0.6 0.9 0.6 9.4 11.26–1.75.............................................. 85 0.0 1.1 1.1 16.6 1More than 1.75 ..................................... 82 0.9 1.3 1.4 20.8 2

FTE = full-time equivalent. 
A-36 

Exhibit A-34 

Number of times per year that selected topics related to school libraries were covered 

in professional development activities, by grantee status: 2003–04 school year 

Times per year (percent) Grantee status and topic area 7 or more 3–6 1–2 Not covered 

 

Grantees 

Selecting books that align with 

curriculum ........................................

9 24 46 20 

Integrating technology into classroom.... 14 39 40 7 

Methods of collaboration........................ 12 28 48 12 

Teaching children to read ....................... 23 18 24 35 

High school/combined/other................... 8 34 30 28 

 

Nongrantees 

Selecting books that align with 

curriculum ........................................

7 13 54 27 

Integrating technology into classroom.... 7 27 58 8 

Methods of collaboration........................ 6 21 47 25 

Teaching children to read ....................... 12 21 33 34 

High school/combined/other................... 5 23 28 44 

NOTE: Percents may not add to 100 because of rounding. 

 
A-37 

Exhibit A-35 

Percent of schools offering professional development in topics related to school libraries, by topic 

number of times per year, and school characteristics: 2003–04 school year 

Selecting materials that 

align with curriculum 

Integrating technology 

into the classroom 

Methods of 

collaboration 

Teaching children to 

read 

School characteristic 

7 or more 1–6 7 or more 1–6 7 or more 1–6 7 or more 1–6 

 Total ...................................................... 7 67 8 85 6 69 12 54 

Nongrantees................................................... 7 66 7 85 6 68 12 54 Grantees......................................................... 9 71 14 79 12 76 23 42 

Received grant for 2 years......................... 9 50 15 71 4 65 10 55 School enrollment size 

400 or less.............................................. 6 72 6 80 10 75 25 41 401–700................................................. 11 68 13 81 10 80 26 50 More than 700 ....................................... 11 73 26 73 17 72 15 34 

School level 

Elementary ............................................ 9 73 9 82 10 82 24 41 Middle/junior high................................. 13 67 18 74 18 69 22 40 High school/combined/other.................. 6 69 23 76 11 68 20 46 

Urbanicity 

City........................................................ 11 69 16 74 12 78 20 36 Urban fringe .......................................... 17 65 14 86 17 75 30 46 Town ..................................................... 0 75 9 74 10 80 9 60 Rural...................................................... 1 78 10 88 9 72 26 50 

Free/reduced-price lunch eligibility 

Less than 50 percent .............................. 7 72 18 81 15 80 20 39 50 percent or more................................. 10 71 13 78 11 74 24 43 

Total expenditures per student 

$12.00 or less......................................... 11 69 16 78 13 75 32 36 $12.01–$20.00....................................... 9 67 16 79 11 72 19 42 More than $20.00 .................................. 8 76 11 79 12 80 18 48 

Total FTE staff 

1.25 or less............................................. 12 66 14 76 11 75 28 40 1.26–1.75............................................... 8 80 14 80 15 76 15 51 More than 1.75 ...................................... 4 73 15 82 11 77 20 40 

FTE = full-time equivalent. 
A-38 

Exhibit A-36 

Percent of school libraries reporting that library staff worked with classroom teachers on 

selected curriculum areas at various frequency rates, by grantee status: 2003–04 school year 

Grantee status Weekly Monthly Quarterly Annually Never Not 

applicable 

 

Grantees 

Reading/language arts . 70 14 4 2 7 3 

English......................... 46 18 9 4 13 9 

Mathematics ................ 9 16 21 20 29 5 

Science ........................ 23 27 25 12 11 3 

Social studies............... 28 34 15 8 11 3 

 

Nongrantees 

Reading/language arts . 59 18 8 5 5 5 

English......................... 42 21 9 4 12 11 

Mathematics ................ 11 17 20 15 28 10 

Science ........................ 23 29 21 12 10 6 

Social studies............... 29 29 22 6 9 5 

NOTE: Percents may not add to 100 because of rounding. 
A-39 

Exhibit A-37 

Percent of school libraries reporting that library staff worked weekly with classroom 

teachers on selected curriculum areas, by school characteristics: 2003–04 school year 

School characteristic Reading/ 

language arts English Mathematics Science Social studies 

 

 Total ............................................ 59 43 11 23 29 

 

Nongrantees......................................... 59 42 11 23 29 

Grantees............................................... 70 46 9 23 28 

Received grant for 2 years............... 60 35 4 29 33 

 

School enrollment size 

400 or less.................................... 64 34 11 16 20 

401–700....................................... 77 54 9 28 33 

More than 700 ............................. 68 54 8 25 34 

 

School level 

Elementary .................................. 68 44 9 20 24 

Middle/junior high....................... 71 45 6 22 33 

High school/combined/other........ 72 54 12 30 34 

 

Urbanicity 

City.............................................. 68 48 9 23 29 

Urban fringe ................................ 65 50 7 23 25 

Town ........................................... 61 42 5 14 27 

Rural............................................ 81 43 14 25 31 

 

Free/reduced-price lunch 

eligibility 

 

Less than 50 percent .................... 67 53 14 31 40 

50 percent or more....................... 71 44 8 20 25 

 

Total expenditures per student 

$12.00 or less............................... 64 46 9 20 31 

$12.01–$20.00............................. 70 45 6 23 30 

More than $20.00 ........................ 76 47 12 24 23 

 

Total FTE staff 

1.25 or less................................... 69 46 9 22 28 

1.26–1.75..................................... 77 43 10 22 29 

More than 1.75 ............................ 67 49 9 25 28 

FTE = full-time equivalent. 
A-40 

Exhibit A-38 

Percent of school libraries reporting that library staff provided selected services to classroom 

teachers in the area of reading or English, by grantee status: 2003–04 school year 

Grantee status Weekly Monthly Quarterly Annually Never Not 

applicable 

 

Grantees 

Selecting resources........... 34 21 15 17 9 4 

Curriculum development.. 10 22 17 18 24 10 

Collaborative teaching...... 13 15 17 12 32 11 

Collaborative evaluation... 4 9 14 18 40 15 

 

Nongrantees 

Selecting resources........... 31 20 12 21 8 7 

Curricular development.... 10 16 10 18 31 15 

Collaborative teaching...... 11 12 12 14 38 14 

Collaborative evaluation... 5 8 12 13 46 16 

NOTE: Percents may not add to 100 because of rounding. 
A-41 

Exhibit A-39 

Percent of school libraries reporting that library staff provided selected services weekly to 

classroom teachers in the area of reading or English, by school characteristics: 2003–04 school year 

School characteristic Selecting 

resources 

Curriculum 

development 

Collaborative 

teaching 

Collaborative 

evaluation 

 

 Total ................................................ 31 10 11 5 

 

Nongrantees............................................. 31 10 11 5 

Grantees................................................... 34 10 13 4 

Received grant for 2 years................... 24 8 10 2 

 

School enrollment size 

400 or less........................................ 26 8 9 3 

401–700........................................... 41 11 16 3 

More than 700 ................................. 38 11 13 6 

 

School level 

Elementary ...................................... 31 10 12 3 

Middle/junior high........................... 42 10 17 7 

High school/combined/other............ 36 11 11 3 

 

Urbanicity 

City.................................................. 34 11 16 5 

Urban fringe .................................... 31 11 10 6 

Town ............................................... 46 3 11 3 

Rural................................................ 32 12 5 0 

 

Free/reduced-price lunch eligibility 

Less than 50 percent ........................ 40 12 13 7 

50 percent or more........................... 33 10 13 3 

 

Total expenditures per student 

$12.00 or less................................... 31 10 16 5 

$12.01–$20.00................................. 37 8 9 3 

More than $20.00 ............................ 35 12 13 4 

 

Total FTE staff 

1.25 or less....................................... 31 10 13 4 

1.26–1.75......................................... 34 8 14 3 

More than 1.75 ................................ 41 12 11 4 

FTE = full-time equivalent. 
A-42 

Exhibit A-40 

Percent of school libraries providing instruction in information skills, by location of instruction a

who provided the instruction, by school characteristics: 2003–04 school year 

Location of providing instruction Who provide

School characteristic Both separate and integrated 

into curriculum 

Separate course 

only 

Integrated into 

curriculum only Neither Library media specialist Class

teac

 Total ................................................ 42 10 44 4 84 8

Nongrantees............................................. 42 10 44 4 84 82 Grantees................................................... 52 8 37 4 87 79 

Received grant for 2 years................... 42 10 32 15 76 5School enrollment size 

400 or less........................................ 54 11 29 6 81 80 401–700........................................... 52 7 38 3 91 80 More than 700 ................................. 47 5 46 2 91 78 

School level 

Elementary ...................................... 59 9 26 5 86 78 Middle/junior high........................... 44 4 51 1 89 80 High school/combined/other............ 38 7 51 4 87 84 

Urbanicity 

City.................................................. 54 6 35 5 91 76 Urban fringe .................................... 46 15 37 2 73 70 Town ............................................... 47 16 37 0 96 86 Rural................................................ 52 6 38 4 84 9

Free/reduced-price lunch eligibility 

Less than 50 percent ........................ 51 11 36 2 96 850 percent or more........................... 52 7 37 5 84 79 

Total expenditures per student 

$12.00 or less................................... 50 7 36 7 85 75 $12.01–$20.00................................. 46 11 42 1 90 8More than $20.00 ............................ 58 6 32 4 87 83 

Total FTE staff 

1.25 or less....................................... 54 9 32 5 81 78 1.26–1.75......................................... 42 5 49 3 92 82 More than 1.75 ................................ 54 9 36 2 95 8

FTE = full-time equivalent. NOTE: Percents may not add to 100 because of rounding. 
B-1 

APPENDIX B 

METHODOLOGY 
B-2 
B-3 

Methodology 

Sample Design and Weighting 

This study focused on districts (or consortia of districts) and schools receiving grants in 2003. 

While school districts were the official recipients of the grants, much of the data desired 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 650 schools participating 

in the grants for 2003, and up to 56 participating schools per district, sampling was considered 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 each other 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 approximately 650 targeted schools in 

districts that received grants in 2003–04. The subsampling of the grantee schools was intended to reduce 

data collection and processing costs and was designed to ensure that at least one school was selected from 

each of the 73 districts or consortia of districts that were awarded grants in 2003–04. The schools that 

received grants in the first year of the program (i.e., 2002–03) were not included either in the grantee or 

the comparison school frame because they might have systematic differences from both groups. 

However, 98 schools in six districts that received grants both in the first and the second 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. 

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. About 25 percent of the comparison schools belonged to 

the first group. 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 (2002–03) 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 1 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 the percentage 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 both of districts that applied for grants but 

were rejected, and districts that did not apply. One could argue that it is the schools that applied but were 

rejected that are most comparable to the grantee sites, with the 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 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 
B-4 

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 due to other factors 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 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 that had librarians that provided instruction on the use of 

libraries, but did not have schoolwide libraries (though such schools may have classroom collections). 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 only able 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, in such cases 

the data 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 628 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 16,076 nongrantee school libraries. 

Ideally, an evaluation study would examine the school libraries over multiple years following 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 2003–04 

school year, either because a change had been in effect for only part of the year (for this reason, 

some items in the questionnaire focused on spring 2004), or the change may have occurred 

after the 2003–04 school year was completed (many of the grantees asked for extensions to 

their schedules in order to have sufficient time to implement the program). 

• 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. 

• It would be desirable to measure the persistence of changes after the grant expires. 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 
B-5 

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. 

While 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 

ED at the completion of the grant period by the participating districts. The form used for the performance 

reports was designed by ED, with input from Westat. These data exist only for the districts receiving 

grantees, and thus cannot be compared to 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, such as 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, many 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, 50 of the 73 grantees had sent 

performance reports. Some types of districts were more likely to submit the reports than others, though 

the differences were usually small. Those most notable differences were that districts were more likely to 

respond if their grants were $100,000 or less (80 percent versus 63 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. 

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 2002–03 and the 2003–04 school years, with the first year 

representing the condition of the school libraries prior to 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 in order 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 Jan. 22, 2004, and 

Feb. 24, 2004. Originally nine schools agreed to participate in the pretest, but two dropped out. The 

results from the seven remaining schools were quite consistent, so their responses were used without 

making any last minute substitutions for the schools that dropped out. The pretest schools were selected 

to included both grantees and nongrantees, and 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, eliminating some questions for which respondents had 

difficulty in supplying accurate data, and rephrasing other questions to facilitate schools’ ability to 

respond or to clarify the meaning of the questions. 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 Sept. 16, 2004. 
B-6 

Data Collection and Processing 

Data collection began with a mailout of the survey questionnaire to school libraries in early 

October 2004. All data collection activities were ended on Feb. 15, 2005, though a few questionnaires 

received after that date were included in the final data file. All data collection 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, 12 were either closed or ineligible because of not having school libraries, leaving 388 school 

libraries. Of these, 353 responded to the survey, for a response rate of 91 percent. Of the 400 nongrantee 

schools that were sampled, eight were ineligible because of school closings and were replaced with 

schools sharing similar characteristics. An additional eight schools were ineligible through not having 

school libraries, leaving a total of 392 school libraries. Of these, 348 responded to the survey, for a 

response rate of 89 percent. The combined response rate across both grantee school libraries and 

nongrantee school libraries was 90 percent, or 701 of 780 school libraries. 

Exhibit B-1 

Number of schools sampled, and number of responses 

School 

characteristic 

Original 

sample 

Closed 

schools Ineligible Total eligible Number of responses 

Response rate

(%) 

Total ............. 808 13 15 780 701 90 

Grantees........ 400 5 7 388 353 91 

Nongrantees.. 408 8 8 392 348 89 

The completed questionnaires were reviewed for completeness and internal consistency. 

Questionnaires that had fewer than 60 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. 

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 

regard to the school enrollment, in order to create statistics that would be more comparable across schools 

of different sizes. These are: 

• Usage in typical week per student enrolled (e.g., Q2apct=Q2a/Q1) 

• Materials checked out per student enrolled (e.g., Q3aperstu=Q3a/Q1) 
B-7 

• Number of pupils per librarian (e.g., if paidstaff04fte>0 then mps2004= q1/paidstaff04fte; 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., nonschl04=sum(q6a_1*q6a_2,q6b_1*q6b_2,q6c,q6d) 

• Total full-time staff (e.g., ftstaff04=q9a_1+q9b_1+q9c_1) 

• Total part-time staff (e.g., ptstaff04=q9a_2+q9b_2+q9c_2) 

• Total paid staff using full-time equivalents 

(e.g., paidstaff04fte=q9a_1+q9b_1+q9c_1+(q9a_2+q9b_2+q9c_2)/2) 

• Mean paid staff per student 

(e.g., if paidstaff04fte>0 then mps2004= q1/paidstaff04fte) 

• Total expenditures for materials other than those report in question 31 

(q31oth=q32_1-q31a_3-q31b_3-q31c_3-q31d_3-q31e_3 

• Expenditures as a percentage of total expenditures for materials 

(e.g., q31a_3pct=q31a_3/q32_) 

• Electronic services networked to locations outside the library 

(e.g., if q26a_3=1 or q26a_4=1 then q26a_34=1; else if q26a_3 ge 0 and q26a_4 ge 0 then 

q26a_34=2;) 

• Number of programs or services that were added or expanded in 2003–04 

(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 only have helped to compensate for these earlier disadvantages, and the 

grantees may not necessarily compare favorably to the nongrantees even after receiving the grants. For 

this reason, when possible, this analysis focuses especially on changes from 2003–03 to 2003–04 rather 

than on straight comparisons based on 2003–04 alone. This 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 2002–03 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 
B-8 

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 2003–04 are available, and if grantees and nongrantees appear to have similar results, 

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 only 

determine 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 presented in this report 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 due 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 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 due to 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, 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 is a 95 percent confidence interval. For example, the 

estimated percentage of grantees reporting their school library staff received professional development on 

school libraries during the 2003–04 school year was 76.26 percent, and the estimated standard error is 

2.440 percent. The 95 percent confidence interval for the statistic extends from [76.26-(2.440 times 

1.96)] to [76.26+ (2.440 times 1.96)] or from 71.48 to 80.04 percent. 
B-9 

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. This means that 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. This means that 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, spring 2004.......................................... 1.23 0.102 

Mean number of materials checked out per student enrolled, spring 2004.......................... 2.51 0.513 

Mean number of hours per week the school library was open in spring 2004..................... 37.09 3.438 

Q16. Staff received professional development on school libraries (percent) ...................... 76.26 2.440 

Q19a. Overall reading/English collection in spring 2004 was excellent (percent)............. 31.81 2.427 

Q30. School worked with public library to plan for summer reading program (percent)... 53.25 3.128 

Nongrantees 

Mean library usage per week per student enrolled, spring 2004.......................................... 1.63 0.409 

Mean number of materials checked out per student enrolled, spring 2004.......................... 1.68 0.169 

Mean number of hours per week the school library was open in spring 2004..................... 34.70 0.847 

Q16. Staff received professional development on school libraries (percent) ...................... 66.78 2.829 

Q19a. Overall reading/English collection in spring 2004 was excellent (percent)............. 25.47 2.525 

Q30. School worked with public library to plan for summer reading program (percent)... 45.67 5.205 
B-10 
C-1 

APPENDIX C 

SCHOOL LIBRARY QUESTIONNAIRE 
C-2 
C-3 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

OFFICE OF THE UNDER SECRETARY 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20202 

IMPROVING LITERACY THROUGH SCHOOL LIBRARIES 

SCHOOL LIBRARY MEDIA CENTER SURVEY 

FORM APPROVED 

O.M.B. No.: 1875–0230 

EXP. DATE: 09/30/2007 

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: 

REDA International, Inc. 

School Library Media Center Survey 

11141 Georgia Avenue 

Suite 517 

Wheaton, MD 20902 

IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS CALL: 

1–800–929-7332 

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 45 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. 
C-4 
C-5 

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 2004, 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 2004 and spring 2003? (Both individual and group visits should be counted. If 

multiple visits by one person, count each visit. Estimates may be used.) 

a. In spring 2004: ___________ students 

b. In spring 2003: ___________ 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 2004 and spring 2003? 

a. In spring 2004: ____________ books and other materials 

b. In spring 2003: ____________ 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 2004 and spring 2003? (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 2004: ____________ Hours per week 

b. In spring 2003: ____________ Hours per week 
C-6 

5. Did this school provide students with access to the LMC during nonschool hours in spring 2004 and/or 

spring 2003? (Circle one response.) 

 Yes, in both years....................................................................... 1 

 Yes, in spring 2004 only ............................................................ 2 

 Yes, in spring 2003 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 

2004 and spring 2003? (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 2004 Spring 2003 

a. Before school ... _____Hours per day _____ days per week _____Hours per day _____ days per week 

b. After school ..... _____Hours per day _____ days per week _____Hours per day _____ days per week 

c. Saturday ........... _____Hours _____Hours 

d. Sunday ............. _____Hours _____Hours 

7. How did your school library use the extended hours during the 2003–04 school year? (Circle one response 

on each 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 2004 and 2003? 

a. In summer 2004: ____________ Days 

b. In summer 2003: ____________ Days 
C-7 

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 2004 and spring 2003. Please include only 

staff working full time in this 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 fulltime equivalent) in each category, counting each person only once. (If none, enter 0.) 

Spring 2004 

(Number of staff) 

Spring 2003 

(Number of staff) 

Full 

time 

Part 

time 

Full 

time 

Part 

time 

a. State-certified library media specialists (LMS) ............. 

b. Professional staff not certified as LMS .......................... 

c. Other paid employees, such as clerical staff, aides ........ 

d. Adult volunteers............................................................. 

e. Total ............................................................................... 

PROGRAMS AND SERVICES 

10. Please indicate how frequently the following services were provided by staff in your school library media 

center during the 2003–04 school year. (Circle one response on each line.) 

 Frequency 

Daily Weekly Monthly Never Not 

applicable

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, and administrators 

find and use relevant information sources 

outside the school............................................ 1 2 3 4 5 

Monthly Quarterly Annually Never Not 

applicable

c. Assist teachers in designing, implementing, 

and evaluating research projects for students.. 1 2 3 4 5 

d. Work with the principal and/or teachers on 

curriculum issues............................................. 1 2 3 4 5 

e. Participate in grade-level, department, or 

team meetings ................................................. 1 2 3 4 5 

f. Coordinate textbook selection, ordering, and 

distribution program in school ........................ 1 2 3 4 5 

g. Coordinate training programs about 

integrating educational technology into the 

curriculum for teachers and other staff ........... 1 2 3 4 5 
C-8 

11. During the 2003–04 school year, how frequently did library staff work with classroom teachers in each of 

the following curricular areas? (Circle one response on each line.) 

Frequency 

Weekly Monthly Quarterly Annually Never Not 

applicable

a. Reading/language arts ................. 1 2 3 4 5 6 

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 2003–04 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 line.) 

Frequency 

Weekly Monthly Quarterly Annually Never Not 

applicable

a. Work with teachers in selecting 

and evaluating library media 

resources in reading or English.... 1 2 3 4 5 6 

b. Work with teachers in 

curriculum development in 

reading/English ............................ 1 2 3 4 5 6 

c. Collaboratively teach

reading/English curriculum units 

with classroom teachers ............... 1 2 3 4 5 6 

d. Collaboratively evaluate 

reading/English curriculum units 

with classroom teachers ............... 1 2 3 4 5 6 

13. How was instruction in information skills provided to students in school year 2003–04? (Circle one 

response on each 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 2003–04? (Circle one 

response on each line.) 

Yes No 

a. Library media specialist ........................................................................................ 1 2 

b. Classroom teachers ............................................................................................... 1 2 

c. Other (please specify) _____________________________________________ 1 2 
C-9 

15. Which of the following services and programs were new to your library in 2003–04 and which ones were 

expanded in 2003–04 compared to 2002–03? (Circle one response on each line.) 

New in 

2003–04 

Expanded 

in 2003–04 No change 

Decreased 

or 

eliminated 

in 2003–04

Not 

performed 

in either 

year 

a. Assist teachers in designing, implementing, 

and evaluating research projects for students.. 1 2 3 4 5 

b. Work with the principal and/or teachers on 

curriculum issues............................................. 1 2 3 4 5 

c. Participate in grade-level, department, or 

team meetings.................................................. 1 2 3 4 5 

d. Coordinate textbook selection, ordering, and 

distribution program in school ........................ 1 2 3 4 5 

e. Coordinate training programs about 

integrating educational technology into the 

curriculum for teachers and other staff ........... 1 2 3 4 5 

f. Work with teachers in selecting and 

evaluating library media resources in reading 

or English ........................................................ 1 2 3 4 5 

g. Work with teachers in curriculum 

development in reading/English...................... 1 2 3 4 5 

h. Collaboratively teach reading/English 

curriculum units with classroom teachers ....... 1 2 3 4 5 

i. Collaboratively evaluate reading/English 

curriculum units with classroom teachers ....... 1 2 3 4 5 

j. Provide instruction in information skills......... 1 2 3 4 5 

k. Provide family literacy nights ......................... 1 2 3 4 5 

l. Provide junior scholars after-school programs 1 2 3 4 5 

m. Provide after-school program with a library 

orientation ....................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 

n. Provide books clubs ........................................ 1 2 3 4 5 
C-10 

PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT 

16. During the 2003–04 school year, did any staff in your school receive professional development on topics 

related to school libraries? 

 Yes...................... 1 

 No ....................... 2 SKIP TO QUESTION 19 

17. How many of the following types of staff received professional development related to school libraries 

during the 2003–04 school year? 

 Number of staff 

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) ___________________________________ _______ 

18. How many times per year were the following topics related to school libraries covered in the professional 

development activities? (Circle one response on each line.) 

Times per year 

7 or 

more 3-6 1-2 

Not 

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 
C-11 

MATERIALS AND RESOURCES 

19. In your opinion, how adequate were the LMC’s holdings in supporting the instructional program in 

reading/English in spring 2004 and in spring 2003? (Circle one response for spring 2004 and one response 

for spring 2003 on each 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 2004 Spring 2003 

 Inadequate Adequate Excellent Inadequate Adequate Excellent 

a. Overall reading/English 

collection .................................... 1 2 3 1 2 3 

b. Print materials............................. 1 2 3 1 2 3 

c. Video and other audiovisual 

materials ..................................... 1 2 3 1 2 3 

d. Computer software ..................... 1 2 3 1 2 3 

20. 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 2004. (Circle one response on each line.)

 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 resources/subscriptions....... 1 2 3 4 

21. What is the copyright year of the LMC’s most recent world atlas in any format (e.g., print, CD-ROM, 

online)? _________ 

22. What is the copyright year of this LMC’s most recent general knowledge encyclopedia in any format (e.g., 

print, CD-ROM, online)? _______ 
C-12 

23. What are the average copyright years of your fiction and nonfiction collections? (If you are not able to get 

an exact count, please provide your best estimate.) 

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 

24. On what basis did you select the books you added to your collection during the 2003–04 school year? 

(Circle one response on each line.) 

 Not 

 important 

Somewhat 

important 

Very 

important 

Not used/ 

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 

25. Is the following equipment located within this library media center? (Circle one response on each 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 
C-13 

26. 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 line.)

Stand-alone 

computer

(nonnetworked)

Library 

LAN 

Buildingwide LAN District 

WAN 

Not 

available 

a. Automated catalogs ......................... 1 2 3 4 5 

b. CD-ROMS....................................... 1 2 3 4 5 

c. Internet access (e.g., Internet 

Explorer, Netscape) ......................... 1 2 3 4 5 

d. E-mail .............................................. 1 2 3 4 5 

e. Electronic full-text periodicals ........ 1 2 3 4 5 

27. 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 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 

28. During the last 12 months, did your school participate in any 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 31 

 Not applicable, public library has bookmobile service only.................... 3 SKIP TO QUESTION 31 

 Not applicable, there is no local public library or bookmobile service.... 4 SKIP TO QUESTION 31 
C-14 

29. 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 line.) 

Frequency 

Weekly Monthly Quarterly Annually Never Not 

applicable

a. Borrowing books or other 

materials for the school library.... 1 2 3 4 5 6 

b. Borrowing books or other 

materials for classroom teachers . 1 2 3 4 5 6 

c. Informing the public library of 

curriculum or upcoming 

homework needs.......................... 1 2 3 4 5 6 

d. Coordinating regarding student 

research projects, including 

science fairs................................. 1 2 3 4 5 6 

e. Participating in automation 

projects such as shared online 

resources, searches, etc. .............. 1 2 3 4 5 6 

30. 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 

31. During the 2003–04 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 2003–

04 should be included in Column 2. If you are not able to get an exact count, please provide your best 

estimate.) 

(1) 

Total number held 

at the END of 

the 2003–04 

school year 

(2) 

Number 

ACQUIRED 

DURING 

the 2003–04 

school year 

(3) 

Report the amount 

spent for rental 

and purchase 

during the 

2003–04 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 ............................ $ 
C-15 

32. What was the TOTAL expenditure for all materials for this library media center during the 2003–04 and 

2002–03 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 2003–04 ................ $ 

b. Total expenditure for materials in 2002–03................. $ 

33. What was the total expenditure for computer hardware, other than communications equipment, for this 

library media center during the 2003–04 and 2002–03 school years? (Include expenditures for purchase, 

rental, and/or lease.) 

a. Total expenditure for computer hardware in 2003–04 .......... $________________ 

b. Total expenditure for computer hardware in 2002–03 .......... $________________ 

34. What was the total expenditure for audiovisual equipment for this library media center during the 2003–04 

and 2002–03 school years? (Include expenditures for purchase, rental, and/or lease.) 

a. Total expenditure for audiovisual equipment in 2003–04..... $________________ 

b. Total expenditure for audiovisual equipment in 2002–03..... $________________ 

SCHOOL INFORMATION 

35. What grades are offered in your school? (Circle all grades that apply or 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: 

36. Does your school have a computer lab? 

 Yes ............... 1 

 No ................ 2 SKIP TO QUESTION 38 

37. 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 

38. Within the past 2 years, has your school conducted a needs assessment of school LMC programs and 

services? (Circle one response on each line.)

 Yes ............... 1 

 No ................ 2 SKIP TO QUESTION 40 
C-16 

39. 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 of the two columns for each need.)

(1) Need 

identified 

(2) Changes 

made as a result 

Yes No Yes No 

a. More library staff ............................................................................... 1 2 1 2 

b. More materials in languages other than English ................................ 1 2 1 2 

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 

40. Did your school participate in any of the following federal education programs during the 2003–04 school 

year? (Circle one response on each 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. Other (please specify) 1 2 

41. How much did your school library receive from the following outside sources of funding during the 2003–

04 school year? (Write one response on each 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. Laura Bush Foundation ....................................................................................... $____________ 

c. Corporate donors, such as Partners in Education ................................................ $____________ 

d. Not-for-profit group (please specify) $____________ 

e. Other (please specify) $____________ 
C-17 

42. As of April 2004, how many of the students enrolled in grades K-12 in your school transferred in or out 

after the start of the 2003–04 school year? (Write one response on each line.) 

Number of students 

a. Transferred in during the 2003–04 school year............................................................ ____________ 

b. Transferred out during the 2003–04 school year.......................................................... ____________ 

RESPONDENT INFORMATION 

43. 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 not 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! 
C-18 
D-1 

APPENDIX D 

DISTRICT PERFORMANCE REPORT 
D-2 
D-3 

Improving Literacy Through School Libraries OMB No. 1810-0667

Exp. Date:11/30/2007

Cover Sheet/Final Grant Report 1) PR/Award No 

See Block 5 on the Grant Award 

Notification. 

S364A030______ 

District Common Core Data Number 

http://nces.ed.gov/ccd/districtsearch 2) Project Title 

Enter the same title as on the 

approved application. 

 3) Recipient Information 

Name: 

Address 

Repeat from Block 1 on Grant Award 

Notification. If address has changed, 

provide the current address. 

City: State: Zip+4: 

 4) Contact Person 

Name: 

Title: 

Telephone Number: 

Fax Number: 

Provide the name of the project 

director or the contact person who is 

most familiar with the content of the 

performance report. 

E-mail Address: 

 5) Reporting Period 

Include the interval for the 

information requested in the 

performance reporting period. - ____/____/____ (mm/dd/yy) 

 6) Total Expenditures 

Federal $ Non-Federal $ 

(if applicable) 

 

Report actual budget expenditures 

for the above performance reporting 

period. 

Provide the District’s indirect cost 

rate 

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: 
D-4 

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. All schools in the district were selected............................................ 1 2 

b. 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 
D-5 

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. 

Total number of extended hours 

per week School served 

(1) 

Grades served 

(2) 

Number of 

students served 

(3) 

Year of the 

grant 

(4) 

Year prior to 

the grant 

(5) 

 
D-6 

5. If extended hours were not provided, please check this box and skip to question 7. 

 During the grant year, how many schools 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 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......................................................................................... ________ 

e. Other (please specify) _______________________________ _______ 
D-7 

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 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 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. 

Number of books 

purchased 

Number of titles of other 

media resources 

purchased 

Number of computers 

purchased for the 

School served/ library

CommonCoreDataNumber(1) 

http://nces.ed.gov/ccd/schoolsearch Year of the 

grant 

(2) 

Year prior 

to the 

grant 

(3) 

Year of the 

grant 

(4) 

Year prior 

to the 

grant 

(5) 

Year of the 

grant 

(6) 

Year prior 

to the 

grant 

(7) 

 
D-8 

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 

more 3-6 1-2 

Not 

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 
D-9 

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, 

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 y

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 

assessed, and whose scores showed they met or exceeded the proficient level of academic achievement for the assessment used. Fnot specifically test in reading/language arts, please provide the test results for English instead. NOTE: Please copy these pages a

for each school served under the grant. 

District Name: ______________________________ School Name/CCD#:___________________________ Name of Achievement Test:_______________________________________________________________

Number of Students 

In the year prior to the grant who were: In the year of the grant who 

Grade level 

Enrolled Assessed Met or Exceeds Proficient Enrolled Assessed 

1.2.3.4.5.6.7.8.9.10.11.12.