Second Evaluation of the 

Improving Literacy Through 

School Libraries Program 

by 

Joan S. Michie 

Bradford W. Chaney 

Westat 

Rockville, Maryland 

Prepared for 

U.S. Department of Education 

Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development 

Policy and Program Studies Service 

2009 
This report was prepared for the U.S. Department of Education under Contract No. ED-01-CO-0082/0014. The project 

monitor was Beth A. Franklin in the Policy and Program Studies Service. The views expressed herein are those of the 

contractor. No official endorsement by the U.S. Department of Education is intended or should be inferred. 

U.S. Department of Education 

Margaret Spellings 

Secretary

Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development 

Bill Evers 

Assistant Secretary

Policy and Program Studies Service 

Alan L. Ginsburg 

Director

Program and Analytic Studies Division 

David Goodwin 

Director 

January 2009

This report is in the public domain. Authorization to reproduce it in whole or in part is granted. While permission to 

reprint this publication is not necessary, the suggested citation is: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Planning, 

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

through School Libraries Program, Washington, D.C., 2009. 

To order copies of this report, write to 

ED Pubs 

Education Publications Center 

U. S. Department of Education 

P. O. Box 1398 

Jessup, MD 20794-1398; 

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

To order by phone, call toll-free: 1-877-433-7827 (1-877-4-ED-PUBS). If the 877 service is not available in your area, 

call 1-800-872-5327 (1-800-USA-LEARN); those who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) or a 

teletypewriter (TTY) should call 1-800-437-0833. 

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

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

On request, this publication is available in alternative formats such as Braille, large print, or computer diskette. For more 

information, please contact the Department’s Alternate Format Center at 202-260-0852 or 202-260-0818. 
iii 

CONTENTS 

Exhibits............................................................................................................................................. iv 

Executive Summary ......................................................................................................................... xiii 

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

 Characteristics of the Program ................................................................................................. 1 

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

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

 Association of School Libraries With Student Test Scores ..................................................... 7 

 Characteristics That Are Associated With Higher Student Test Scores................................... 9 

3. Program Implementation............................................................................................................ 11 

How Districts Allocate Program Funds ................................................................................... 12 

Other Outside Support for Literacy and Libraries ................................................................... 16 

How Schools Allocate Funds................................................................................................... 17 

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

Needs Assessment.................................................................................................................... 21 

Resources ................................................................................................................................. 24 

Involvement of Students .......................................................................................................... 34 

Services Offered....................................................................................................................... 40 

Staffing of School Libraries..................................................................................................... 44 

Professional Development Related to School Libraries........................................................... 45 

Collaboration With Teachers ................................................................................................... 49 

Libraries That Received Grants for Two or Three Years......................................................... 52 

5. Achievement Analysis.................................................................................................................. 55 

Methodology ............................................................................................................................ 55 

Limitations and Design Issues ................................................................................................. 65 

Presentation of Multiple Measurements of Test Scores........................................................... 67 

Findings.................................................................................................................................... 69 

6. Conclusions................................................................................................................................... 75 

Summary of Findings: How Do Districts Allocate Funds and Are They Targeted to 

Schools With the Greatest Need for Improved Library Resources? .............................. 75 

Summary of Findings: How Are Funds Used (e.g., to Buy Books, Improve 

Technology, Increase Library Hours, or Provide Professional Development 

for Library and Reading Staff, etc.?............................................................................... 76 

Summary of Findings: What Is the Relationship Between Participation in This 

Program and Staff Collaboration and Coordination?..................................................... 76 

Summary of Findings: How Do Reading Achievement Scores Vary in Schools 

That Received Grants for 1, 2, or 3 Years Compared With Matched 

Comparison Schools That Have Not Received Grants?................................................. 77 

References......................................................................................................................................... 79 
iv 

APPENDICES 

Appendix 

A Detailed Tables....................................................................................................................... 81 

B Methodology ........................................................................................................................... 123

C School Library Questionnaire............................................................................................... 133 

D District Performance Report................................................................................................. 151 

E Case Study Protocols.............................................................................................................. 161 

F Case Study Summaries.......................................................................................................... 175 

EXHIBITS 

Exhibit 

1 Percentage of Grantee and Nongrantee School Libraries Identifying Various Needs 

Through a Needs Assessment, Fall 2006 ......................................................................... xiii 

2 Mean Expenditures on materials by School Libraries, by Grantee Status, 2004–05 

and 2005–06 School Years .............................................................................................. xiv 

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

2005.................................................................................................................................. xv 

1-1 Improving Literacy Through School Libraries Program Grant Awards, by Award 

Cycle, 2002–2007 ............................................................................................................ 2 

1-2 Percentage of Schools With Selected Characteristics, by Participation Status, 2005–

06 School Year................................................................................................................. 5 

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

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

Years ................................................................................................................................ 12 

3-2 Methods Districts Use to Select Schools for Participation in the LSL Grant During 

the 2005–06, 2004–05 and 2003–04 School Years.......................................................... 13 

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

3-4 Percentage of Districts Using Various Methods to Distribute Grant Money to 

Schools, 2005–06, 2004–05 and 2003–04 School Years................................................. 14 

3-5 Percentage of Districts Using Various Personnel to Decide Which Schools to Serve 

and How Grant Funds Should Be Spent, 2005–06 and 2003–04 School Years .............. 15 
v 

EXHIBITS (continued) 

Exhibit 

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

3-7 Percentage of School Libraries Receiving Funding From Various Federal Education 

Programs, by Grantee Status, 2005–06 School Year ....................................................... 16 

3-8 Percentage of School Libraries Receiving Funding From Various Outside Sources 

During the 2005–06 School Year, by Grantee Status ...................................................... 17 

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

Years ................................................................................................................................ 18 

3-10 Mean Expenditures on Materials by School Libraries, by Grantee Status, 2004–05 

and 2005–06 School Years .............................................................................................. 18 

3-11 Mean expenditures by School Libraries on Selected Materials, by Grantee Status, 

2005–06 School Year....................................................................................................... 19 

4-1 Percentage of School Libraries Identifying Various Resource-Related Needs Through 

a Needs Assessment and the Percentage That Made Changes, by Grantee Status, Fall 

2006.................................................................................................................................. 22 

4-2 Percentage of School Libraries Identifying Various Staffing-Related Needs Through 

a Needs Assessment and the Percentage That Made Changes, by Grantee Status, Fall 

2006.................................................................................................................................. 23 

4-3 Percentage of School Libraries Reporting That Their Holdings Were Excellent or 

Adequate in Supporting the Instructional Program in English, by Type of Material 

and Grantee Status, Spring 2005 and 2006 ...................................................................... 25 

4-4 Percentage of School Libraries Reporting That Their Resources Were Excellent or 

Adequate in the Grant Year and the Year Before the Grant Year, by Type of 

Resource and Grantee Status, Spring 2006 and 2005 ...................................................... 26 

4-5 Mean Acquisitions and Holdings of Grantee and Nongrantee School Libraries, by 

Type of Material, 2005–06 School Year.......................................................................... 27 

4-6 Copyright Date of School Libraries’ Most Recent General Encyclopedia, by Grantee 

Status, Fall 2006............................................................................................................... 27 

4-7 Percentage of School Libraries Indicating That Various Factors Were Very or 

Somewhat Important in Selecting Books to Add to Their Collection, by Grantee 

Status, Fall 2006............................................................................................................... 28 

4-8 Percentage of School Libraries in Which Various Electronic Services Were Not 

Available, by Grantee Status, Fall 2006........................................................................... 30 
vi 

EXHIBITS (continued) 

Exhibit 

4-9 Percentage of School Libraries Reporting That Various Electronic Services Were 

Networked to Locations Outside of the Library, by Grantee Status, Fall 2006............... 31 

4-10 Most Frequent Approach Used by Grantee and Nongrantee Schools to Provide 

Various Electronic Services, by Type of Service, Fall 2006 ........................................... 31 

4-11 Percentage of School Libraries With Computer Access to the Catalogs of Other 

Libraries, by Grantee Status, Fall 2006............................................................................ 32 

4-12 Percentage of School Libraries That Participated in Various Cooperative Activities 

With Local Public Libraries, by Grantee Status, Fall 2006 and 2004.............................. 33 

4-13 Number of Hours That School Libraries Were Open During a Typical Full Week, 

by Grantee Status, 2006 and 2005.................................................................................... 34 

4-14 Number of Days That School Libraries Were Open During the Summer, 

by Grantee Status, 2006 and 2005.................................................................................... 35 

4-15 Percentage of Libraries Open During Nonschool Hours, by Grantee Status, Spring 

2006 and 2005.................................................................................................................. 36 

4-16 Mean Number of Nonschool Hours of Library Access per Week, by Grantee Status, 

Spring 2006 and 2005 ...................................................................................................... 37 

4-17 Mean Number of Nonschool Hours of Access per Week to School Libraries, by Time 

of Access and Grantee Status, Spring 2005 and 2006 ..................................................... 38 

4-18 Percentage of School Libraries Saying That Various Factors Were Either Major or 

Moderate Barriers to Extending Library Hours, by Grantee Status, Fall 2006................ 39 

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

2005.................................................................................................................................. 40 

4-20 Percentage of School Libraries Offering Selected Services on a Daily or Monthly 

Basis, by Grantee Status, 2005–06 School Year.............................................................. 41 

4-21 Percentage of School Libraries Providing New or Expanded General Programs or 

Services in 2005–06, by Grantee Status........................................................................... 42 

4-22 Percentage of School Libraries Providing New or Expanded Programs Relating to 

Reading or English in 2005–06, by Grantee Status ......................................................... 43 

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

EXHIBITS (continued) 

Exhibit 

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

4-25 Mean Number of Staff Members Participating in Professional Development, 

by Grantee Status, 2005–06 and 2003–04 School Years ................................................. 46 

4-26 Percentage of School Libraries Covering Selected Topics in Professional 

Development Activities, by Grantee Status, 2005–06 School Year ................................ 47 

4-27 Percentage of School Libraries Covering Selected Topics in Professional 

Development Activities, by Grantee Status, 2005–06 and 2004–05 School Years ......... 48 

4-28 Percentage of School Libraries With Library Staff Members Working With 

Classroom Teachers on a Weekly Basis, by Grantee Status, 2005–06 School Year ....... 49 

4-29 Percentage of School Libraries Providing Selected Services to Classroom Teachers in 

Reading or English, by Grantee Status, 2005–06 School Year........................................ 50 

4-30 Approaches Used to Provide Instruction in Information Skills, by Grantee Status, 

2005–06 School Year....................................................................................................... 51 

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

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

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

5-3 Regression Models to Estimate Association of 2003–04 LSL Grants With 2004–05 

Test Scores, With Various Baseline Years for Test Results ............................................ 68 

5-4 Regression Models to Estimate Association of LSL Grants With Student Test Scores, 

Using 2002–03 Test Scores (Where Available) to Predict 2004–05 Test Scores, 

by Instructional Level ...................................................................................................... 71
viii 

EXHIBITS (continued) 

Exhibit 

A-1 Percentage of Districts Using Various Methods to Select Schools for Participation in 

the Grant and to Distribute Grant Money to the Schools, by District Characteristics, 

2005–06 School Year....................................................................................................... 83 

A-2 Percentage of Districts Using Various Personnel to Decide Which Schools to Serve, 

by District Characteristics, 2005–06 School Year ........................................................... 84 

A-3 Percentage of Districts Using Various Personnel to Decide How the Grant Funds 

Should be Spent, by District Characteristics, 2005–06 School Year ............................... 85 

A-4 Percentage of Districts Using Various Personnel to Decide Which Schools to Serve 

and How Grant Funds Should Be Spent, by Personnel Type, 2003–04, 2004–05 and 

2005–06 School Years ..................................................................................................... 86 

A-5 Percentage of Grant Funding Spent by Category, by District Characteristics, 2005–06 

School Year...................................................................................................................... 87 

A-6 Total Grant Funding and Amount and Percentage of Funding Spent, by Category, 

2004–05 and 2005–06 School Years................................................................................ 88 

A-7 Mean Expenditures in School Libraries and Percentage Change of Those 

Expenditures Between the 2004–05 and 2005–06 School Years, by School 

Characteristics.................................................................................................................. 89 

A-8 Mean Expenditures for All Materials in the 2004–05 and 2005–06 School Years and 

Distribution of 2005–06 Expenditures Among Selected Materials, by School 

Characteristics.................................................................................................................. 90 

A-9 Percentage of School Libraries That Conducted a Needs Assessment in the Last Two 

Years, and Percentage of Those Libraries That Identified Particular Needs, by School 

Characteristics, Fall 2006................................................................................................. 91 

A-10 Percentage of School Libraries That Made Changes as the Result of a Needs 

Assessment in the Last Two Years, by School Characteristics, Fall 2006 ...................... 92 

A-11 Percentage of School Libraries’ Holdings That Support the Instructional Program in 

English, by Degree of Adequacy, Grantee Status and Type of Material, Spring 2005 

and 2006........................................................................................................................... 93 

A-12 Percentage of School Libraries Reporting That Their Holdings in Supporting the 

Instructional Program in English Were Adequate or Excellent, by School 

Characteristics, Spring 2005 and 2006............................................................................. 94 
ix 

EXHIBITS (continued) 

Exhibit 

A-13 Percentage of School Libraries Reporting the Adequacy of Their Resources in 

Specified Areas, by Grantee Status, Spring 2005 and 2006............................................. 95 

A-14 Percentage of School Libraries Reporting That Their Resources Were Excellent or 

Adequate in Specified Areas, by School Characteristics, Spring 2005 and 2006............ 96 

A-15 Recency of Copyrights of Holdings at School Libraries, by School Characteristics, 

Fall 2006 .......................................................................................................................... 97 

A-16 Percentage of Schools Indicating the Importance of Various Factors in Their 

Library’s Choice of Books to Add During the 2005–06 School Year, by Grantee 

Status................................................................................................................................ 98 

A-17 Percentage of School Libraries Reporting That Various Factors Were Very or 

Somewhat Important When Selecting Books to Add to the Collection During the 

2005–06 School Year, by School Characteristics ............................................................ 99 

A-18 Percentage of School Libraries Reporting That Various Electronic Services Were 

Available on Different Kinds of Networks, by Grantee Status, Fall 2006....................... 100 

A-19 Percentage of School Libraries Reporting That Various Electronic Services Were 

Networked to Locations Outside of the Library, by School Characteristics, Fall 2006... 101 

A-20 Percentage of School Libraries With Computer Access to Catalogs of Other 

Libraries, by Type of Library and School Characteristics, Fall 2006 .............................. 102 

A-21 Percentage of School Libraries That Participated in Cooperative Activities With 

Local Public Libraries and the Ways They Participated in the Last 12 Months, 

by School Characteristics, Fall 2006................................................................................ 103 

A-22 Mean Length of Time the School Library Was Open, by School Characteristics, 

Spring 2005 and 2006 ...................................................................................................... 104 

A-23 Access to the School Library During Nonschool Hours, by School Characteristics, 

Spring 2005 and 2006 ...................................................................................................... 105 

A-24 Percentage of School Libraries Using Extended Hours for Various Activities 

During the 2005–06 School Year, by School Characteristics.......................................... 106 

A-25 Percentage of School Libraries Reporting Major or Moderate Barriers to Providing 

Services During Nonschool Hours, by School Characteristics, Spring 2006 .................. 107 
x 

EXHIBITS (continued) 

Exhibit 

A-26 Percentage of School Libraries Reporting Barriers to Providing Services During 

Nonschool Hours, by Grantee Status, Spring 2006.......................................................... 108 

A-27 Mean Usage of School Library Resources per Student, by School Characteristics, 

Spring 2005 and 2006 ...................................................................................................... 109 

A-28 Percentage of School Libraries Offering Selected Services and the Frequency of 

Those Services, by Grantee Status, 2005–06 School Year .............................................. 110 

A-29 Percentage of School Libraries Reporting That They Provide Selected Services, 

by the Highest Listed Level of Frequency and School Characteristics, 2005–06 

School Year...................................................................................................................... 111 

A-30 Percentage of School Libraries Indicating Changes in Their Provision of Selected 

Services, by Grantee Status and Type of Service, 2005–06 School Year........................ 112 

A-31 Percentage of School Libraries Providing Selected New or Expanded General 

Programs, by School Characteristics, 2005–06 School Year........................................... 113 

A-32 Percentage of School Libraries Providing Selected New or Expanded Programs 

Related to Reading/English, by School Characteristics, 2005–06 School Year .............. 114 

A-33 Mean Number of Staff per School Library and Pupils per Librarian, by School 

Characteristics, Spring 2005 and 2006............................................................................. 115 

A-34 Percentage of Schools Offering Professional Development Related to School 

Libraries, by Topic Area and School Characteristics, 2005–06 School Year.................. 116 

A-35 Percentage of Schools Offering Professional Development Related to School 

Libraries, by Grantee Status, 2004–05 and 2005–06 School Years................................. 117 

A-36 Percentage of School Libraries Reporting That Library Staff Members Worked With 

Classroom Teachers on Selected Curriculum Areas at Various Frequency Rates, 

by Grantee Status, 2005–06 School Year ........................................................................ 118 

A-37 Percentage of School Libraries Reporting That Library Staff Members Worked 

Weekly With Classroom Teachers on Selected Curriculum Areas, by School 

Characteristics, 2005–06 School Year ............................................................................. 119 

A-38 Percentage of School Libraries Reporting That Library Staff Members Provided 

Selected Services to Classroom Teachers in the Area of Reading or English at 

Various Frequency Rates, by Grantee Status, 2005–06 School Year .............................. 120 
xi 

EXHIBITS (continued) 

Exhibit 

A-39 Percentage of School Libraries Reporting That Library Staff Members Provided 

Selected Services to Classroom Teachers in the Area of Reading or English, 

by School Characteristics, 2005–06 School Year ............................................................ 121 

A-40 Percentage of School Libraries Providing Instruction in Information Skills Through 

Various Approaches, by School Characteristics, 2005–06 School Year ......................... 122 

B-1 Number of Schools Sampled and Number Responses..................................................... 129

B-2 Selected Standard Errors for School Survey Statistics .................................................... 132
xii 
xiii 

Executive Summary 

The Improving Literacy Through School Libraries (LSL) program was established under Title I, 

Part B, Subpart 4 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) by the No Child Left Behind 

Act of 2001 (NCLB). The purpose of the program is to improve the literacy skills and academic 

achievement of students by providing them with increased access to up-to-date school library materials; a 

well-equipped, technologically advanced school library media center; and well-trained, professionally 

certified school library media specialists. 

Included in the legislation was a requirement for an evaluation of the program to be conducted no 

later than three years after the enactment of NCLB and biennially after that. This report provides findings 

from the second evaluation of the LSL program. It contains new survey data on the 2005–06 school year 

and an analysis of the relationship between student test scores and the receipt of LSL grants in 2003–04. 

Key Findings 

• Districts often reported selecting schools to participate in the grant based on various kinds of 

disadvantages at those schools such as lack of library resources, poverty level, and those identified 

for improvement under NCLB. 

• Grantees roughly tripled their expenditures on books and subscriptions as well as computer 

hardware, while nongrantees showed little change. 

• Before the grant, significantly fewer grantees considered their reading/English materials to be 

adequate or excellent compared with nongrantees. In contrast, during the grant year, significantly 

more of the grantees considered their overall reading/English literature, print materials, and 

computer software to be adequate or excellent compared with nongrantees. 

• To the extent that libraries increased the hours they were open, one might expect that student use of 

the libraries would increase, for example, in the number of students using the libraries in a typical 

week or in the number of materials that were checked out. However, as in the first evaluation, 

grantees showed an increase in student usage of the libraries per week but no significant change in 

number of materials checked out. 

• Grantees were more likely than nongrantees to report establishing new programs or expanding 

existing programs that involved collaboration between school library media specialists, teachers and 

administrators. 

• No definitive statement can be made based on these data as to whether LSL was associated with 

improved test scores. 

Characteristics of the Improving Literacy Through School Libraries Program 

The LSL program is a competitive grant award program with two eligibility requirements: (1) an 

applicant must be a local educational agency (LEA) (which in some instances may include a charter 

school, regional service agency, or state-administered school designated as an LEA),1

 and (2) at least 

20 percent of the students in the LEA must be from families with incomes below the poverty line. There 

are no specific eligibility criteria for the schools in which grant recipients use the LSL funds. 

 

1

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

Districts may use program funds to do the following: 

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

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

and enhance the information literacy, information retrieval and critical thinking skills of 

students; 

• Facilitate Internet links and other resource-sharing networks among schools, school library 

media centers and public and academic libraries, where possible; 

• Provide professional development for school library media specialists and activities that foster 

increased collaboration between school library media specialists, teachers and administrators; 

and 

• Provide students with access to school libraries during nonschool hours, including the hours 

before and after school, during weekends and during summer vacation periods. 

Grants for the LSL program are for one year, although many projects in the early years of the 

program have received time extensions. Beginning with the 2005 cohort, time extensions have not 

generally been given. 

Overview of the Evaluation 

The key evaluation questions were as follows: 

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

improved library resources? 

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

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

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

coordination? 

• How do reading achievement scores vary in schools that received grants for 1, 2 or 3 years 

compared with matched comparison schools that have not received grants? 

The following four data sources were used in the evaluation. 

• A survey of school libraries. The survey was sent in fall 2006 to a sample of 400 school 

libraries served by the grant in 2005–06 (grantees) and to a comparison sample of 400 schools 

matched on a variety of district and school characteristics2

 in districts that were eligible for the 

grant in that year (nongrantees). 

 

2

 The district characteristics used for matching were region, district poverty status, school district type, urbanicity, and district enrollment size. 

The school-level characteristics included instructional level, school type, enrollment size, type of locale, percentage of students belonging to 

racial/ethnic minorities, and the percentage receiving free lunches. The comparison sample was not matched on prior achievement, which was 

not available at the time of sampling. 
xv 

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

Department of Education, components of which include a description of the project; highlights 

of key accomplishments; a report on how the district met each of its project objectives; a 

project evaluation; and information on expenditures, schools served and professional 

development. Performance reports from districts receiving the grant in 2004–05 and 2005–06 

were analyzed for this evaluation. 

• Case study site visit reports. Site visits were made to nine school districts, including one or 

two schools within the districts visited. The visits focused on promising school library practices 

in districts that had received LSL grants in 2003 through 2005. Site selection was based on 

performance and demographic data. Site visits were conducted either by one person or by twoperson teams between November 2006 and January 2007. 

• Test scores. Annual school-level test score data on students’ proficiency in reading/language 

arts were obtained from the National Longitudinal School-Level State Assessment Database. 

This database is a compilation of test results from each state’s proficiency exams. NCLB uses 

these results for accountability purposes. The most recent test score data available at the time 

of this report were for 2005, which was before receipt of the LSL grants by the grantees 

surveyed in this evaluation. Therefore, the test score data were merged with the survey data 

from the first LSL evaluation to measure whether changes in school libraries were associated 

with changes in student test scores. Of the 701 respondents to the 2004 survey, test scores were 

available for 553 schools (79 percent). Baseline data from the year before these grants (2002–

03) were available for only 40 percent of the sample. 

Results and Conclusions 

The results address each of the key evaluation questions. 

 Targeting of Program Funds 

• Generally, the approaches used by districts to select schools for participation in the grant have 

been the same each year between 2003–04 and 2005–06. Districts often reported selecting 

schools to participate in the grant based on various kinds of disadvantages at those schools: 36 

percent chose schools based on a lack of library resources, 22 percent based on the poverty 

level, and 20 percent based on those identified for improvement under NCLB. 
xvi 

• The survey of library media centers confirmed that, on many characteristics, the grantee 

schools started with a relative disadvantage as compared with nongrantee schools. 

– Among those districts conducting needs assessments, grantees were significantly more 

likely than nongrantees to identify needs for more library staff (55 percent versus 33 

percent), more up-to-date materials (95 percent versus 85 percent), and more space 

(51 percent versus 33 percent). It should be noted that funding for more space is not 

covered by LSL. Additional needs identified more frequently by grantees were more hours 

when the library was open (75 percent versus 41 percent), more time for planning with 

teachers (64 percent versus 40 percent), and more professional development (75 percent 

versus 57 percent) (Exhibit 1). Overall, the percentage of grantees and nongrantees 

identifying various needs was about the same in the first and second evaluations. 

– Before the grant, grantees were 

more likely than nongrantees to 

report that their holdings were 

inadequate in all four general areas 

examined in the survey: the overall 

reading/English collection (34 

percent versus 22 percent), print 

materials (35 percent versus 

23 percent), video/ audiovisual 

materials (52 percent versus 

37 percent), and computer software 

(57 percent versus 44 percent). 

Exhibit 1 

Percentage of Grantee and Nongrantee School 

Libraries Identifying Various Needs 

Through a Needs Assessment, Fall 2006 

33

33

40

57

41

85

51*

55*

64*

75*

75*

95*

0 20 40 60 80 100

More space

More library staff

More time for planning 

with teachers

More professional 

development

More hours in which 

the library is open

More up-to-date 

materials

Percentage

Grantee

Nongrantee

Exhibit reads: Ninety-five percent of the grantees identified a 

need for more up-to-date materials, compared with 85 percent 

of the nongrantees. This difference is statistically significant 

(p ≤ .05). 

Note: The asterisks (*) indicate that there is a statistically 

significant difference (i.e., p-value ≤ .05) between grantee and 

nongrantee school libraries. Percents are based on school 

libraries that had done a needs assessment. 

Source: Second evaluation, school library media center survey 

question 40. 
xvii 

 Use of Program Funds 

The grantees made a large number of improvements during the 2005–06 school year, when they 

received the grant, while relatively little change occurred among the nongrantees. Following are some of 

the major changes: 

• Grantees roughly tripled 

their expenditures on books 

and subscriptions as well as 

computer hardware, while 

nongrantees showed little 

change (Exhibit 2). 

• Of those that conducted 

needs assessments, the 

grantees were often more 

likely to make changes, 

including getting more upto-date materials (92 percent 

versus 78 percent), 

increasing professional 

development (68 percent 

versus 41 percent), 

increasing the number of 

hours the library was open 

(62 percent versus 

24 percent) and providing 

more time for planning with 

teachers (39 percent versus 

21 percent). Overall, the 

percentage of grantees and 

nongrantees making 

changes to address needs 

was about the same in the 

first and second evaluations. 

• The first evaluation found that overall, the grants seemed to compensate for grantees’ earlier 

disadvantages and bring them to rough equality with the nongrantees whereas the second 

evaluation found that the grants enabled the grantees to surpass the nongrantees. In spring 

2005, before the grant, significantly fewer grantees considered their reading/English materials 

to be adequate or excellent compared with nongrantees for all types of materials, namely, 

overall reading/English literature, print materials, video/audiovisual materials, and computer 

software. In contrast, in spring 2006, during the grant year, significantly more of the grantees 

considered their overall reading/English literature, print materials and computer software to be 

adequate or excellent compared with nongrantees. 

• In both the first and second evaluations, grantees often were more likely to provide new or 

expanded programs than nongrantees. In the second evaluation, these programs included 

providing instruction on information skills (52 percent versus 36 percent), working with 

classroom teachers on selecting reading or English resources (49 percent versus 33 percent), 

holding family literacy nights (38 percent versus 13 percent), and holding after-school 

programs offering an orientation to the library (34 percent versus 8 percent). 

Exhibit 2 

Mean Expenditures on Materials by School Libraries, 

by Grantee Status, 2004–05 and 2005–06 

School Years 

$7,835

$26,008

$7,315 $8,085

$1,595

$5,959

$1,871 $1,838

$1,821

$873 $673 $526

$0

$10,000

$20,000

$30,000

$40,000

2004–05 2005–06 2004–05 2005–06

Grantees Nongrantees

Books and subscriptions Computer hardware Audiovisual equipment

Grantees Nongrantees

Exhibit reads: In the 2004–05 school year, grantees spent an average of 

$7,835 on books and subscriptions, $1,595 on computer hardware, and $873 

on audiovisual equipment. 

Source: Second evaluation, school library media center survey questions 33, 

34, and 35. 
xviii 

• Grantees increased access to libraries in several ways. During the school year, 39 percent of 

grantees provided access during nonschool hours in 2005, and 72 percent in 2006. Among 

nongrantees, the statistics were 54 percent in 2005 and 56 percent in 2006 (Exhibit 3). Grantees 

increased the number of days the library was open during the summer from a mean of 2.9 days 

in 2005 to 7.7 days in 2006, compared with no significant change among nongrantees in the 

amount of summer access. In the first evaluation, grantees showed a significant increase in the 

days that the libraries were open in the summer, while the grantees showed no significant 

change. 

• To the extent that libraries 

increased the hours they were 

open, one might expect that 

student usage of the libraries 

would increase—for example, 

in the number of students using 

the libraries in a typical week or 

in the number of materials that 

were checked out. As in the first 

evaluation, grantees showed an 

increase in usage per week but 

no significant change in number 

of materials checked out. 

Relationship Between Participation 

in the Program and Staff 

Collaboration and Coordination 

• Grantees were more likely 

than nongrantees to report 

establishing new programs 

or expanding existing 

programs that involved 

collaboration. Specifically, 

these programs include 

programs to have library 

media staff members assist 

teachers in designing, 

implementing and evaluating research projects for students (42 percent versus 24 percent), 

coordinate training programs about integrating educational technology into the curriculum for 

teachers and other staff members (42 percent versus 22 percent), work with the principal and/or 

teachers on curriculum issues (40 percent versus 23 percent), and participate in team meetings 

(36 percent versus 23 percent). In the first evaluation, grantees were also more likely than 

nongrantees to have increased services involving collaboration.

Exhibit 3 

Provision of Access During Nonschool Hours, 

by Grantee Status, Spring 2006 and 2005 

54

54

37

37

2

35

0

2

0 20 40 60 80

2005

2006

2005

2006

Nongrantees Grantees

Percentage

Both years

Indicated year only

72 (Total)

39 (Total)

56 (Total)

54 (Total)

Exhibit reads: In 2006, 37 percent of the grantees that were open during 

nonschool hours in the previous year continued to be open and an additional 

35 percent began offering this service. A total of 72 percent of grantees 

were open during nonschool hours in 2006. In 2005, 37 percent of the 

grantees provided access during nonschool hours and continued to be open 

in 2006. An additional 2 percent provided access in 2005 but not in 2006. 

Altogether, 39 percent of the grantees provided access during 2005. 

Source: Second evaluation, school library media center survey 

question 5.
xix 

Relationship Between Participation in the Program and Reading Achievement Scores 

• No definitive statement can be made based on these data on whether LSL was associated with 

improved test scores. 

• One of the primary features of the LSL program—increasing the size of the book collections—

was significantly related to increased test scores. On average, each additional book per student 

that libraries obtained was associated with an increase of 0.44 percentage points in student test 

scores. LSL participation was associated with purchasing 1,250 additional books in 2004–05 

(520 more than nongrantees), or about 2.9 additional books per student (1.5 more than among 

nongrantees). Based on these statistics, the expected total improvement associated with the 

book-purchasing component of the LSL program would be an increase of 1.3 percentage 

points, and the expected improvement with relation to nongrantees would be an increase of 0.7 

percentage points. 

 The findings from the analyses of student reading achievement should be interpreted with 

considerable caution. The LSL and non-LSL schools were not randomly assigned to treatment and control 

groups. Although the LSL and non-LSL schools are similar on the demographic variables available to the 

study, achievement data were not available for matching at the time of sampling. Later analyses showed 

only small differences, but we were unable to verify baseline equivalence on achievement because of 

missing baseline data for 60 percent of the respondents. Therefore, we cannot assume that the two groups 

of schools are equivalent except for the fact that one group received LSL funds while the other did not. 

Thus, the findings cannot support causal inferences that attribute observed differences in student reading 

achievement between LSL and non-LSL schools to the LSL program.3

 

 

3

 Additional limitations to the analysis of student reading achievement are presented in Chapter 5. 
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 (NCLB). The purpose of the program is to improve the literacy skills and academic 

achievement of students by providing them with increased access to up-to-date school library materials; a 

well-equipped, technologically advanced school library media center; and well-trained, professionally 

certified school library media specialists. Included in the legislation was a requirement for an evaluation 

of the program to be conducted no later than three years after the enactment of NCLB and biennially after 

that. This report provides findings from the first biennial evaluation, referenced as the second evaluation 

in the report. 

The first chapter of this report contains a description of the LSL program and an overview of the 

evaluation. Because the LSL program infers a linkage between school libraries and literacy, a brief 

overview of the research on this topic is presented in the second chapter of this report. Evaluation results 

on the implementation of the program are shown in the third chapter, which examines how districts 

allocate program funds to schools, how schools allocate library funds, and how other outside support is 

found for literacy and libraries. The fourth chapter discusses what school-level changes were associated 

with participation in the LSL program. The evaluation explored many dimensions of a school library that 

might change through participation in the program, including resources available, extended hours, 

services offered, staffing, professional development, and collaboration with teachers. The fifth chapter 

provides the results of an analysis of the relationship of certain library characteristics and student test 

scores. The conclusions of the evaluation are contained in the sixth chapter of this report. 

Characteristics of the Program 

The LSL program is one of several programs in the current ESEA designed to improve students’ 

reading skills. It is a competitive grant award program with two eligibility requirements. The first 

requirement is that the applicant must be a local educational agency (LEA) (which in some instances may 

include a charter school, regional service agency, or a state-administered school designated as an LEA).4

The second eligibility requirement is that at least 20 percent of the students in the LEA must be from 

families with incomes below the poverty line. The poverty rate is based on data from the U.S. Census 

Bureau and is a stricter measure than the free and reduced-price lunch statistic. There are no specific 

eligibility criteria for the schools in which districts use the LSL funds; it is up to the district to determine 

which schools receive the funding. 

Districts may use program funds to do the following: 

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

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

and enhance information literacy, to assist in information retrieval, and to develop critical 

thinking skills of students; 

• Facilitate Internet links and other resource-sharing networks among schools, school library 

media centers, and public and academic libraries, where possible; 

 

4 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 professional development for school library media specialists and activities that foster 

increased collaboration between school library media specialists, teachers and administrators; 

and 

• Provide students with access to school libraries during nonschool hours, including the hours 

before and after school, during weekends and during summer vacation periods. 

Grants for the LSL program are for one year, although many projects in the early years of the 

program received time extensions. Beginning with the 2005 cohort, time extensions have not generally 

been given. Thus far, the program has had five award cycles, and grants for the sixth cycle were awarded 

in June 2007 and began on September 1, 2007. (Exhibit 1-1). 

Exhibit 1-1 

Improving Literacy Through School Libraries Program Grant Awards, 

by Award Cycle, 2002–2007 

Award cycle 

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 ................. $19.7 85 $225,000 $26,000 $350,000 

2006.................. $19.5 78 $250,000 $30,000 $300,000 

2007.................. $18.9 78 $240,000 $61,000 $399,000 

Exhibit reads: In 2002, the total funds available for LSL grants was $12.4 million. There were 94 grant awards with an average 

amount of $130,000. The smallest award was $24,000 and the largest was $350,000. 

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

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

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

• Describe how the funds would be used; 

• Tell how school library media specialists, teachers, administrators and parents would be 

involved in the project activities; 

• Show how the programs and materials used in the project are grounded in scientifically based 

research; 

• Describe how the funds and project activities will be coordinated with other federal, state and 

local funds for literacy, school libraries, technology and professional development; and 

• Show how the district will collect and analyze data on the quality and effect of project 

activities. 

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

site also provides poverty information so school districts can determine whether they are eligible to apply. 
3 

A group of districts may submit a joint application to the program, but all districts must be individually 

eligible for it. 

Overview of the Evaluation 

The legislation establishing the LSL program required that an evaluation be conducted no later than 

three years after the enactment of NCLB. The first such evaluation covered school libraries served by 

grants in 2003–04 and included a sample of comparable nongrantees to better understand how the LSL 

program was associated with different school library practices and student outcomes. This report is based 

on data covering the 2005–06 school year and contains comparisons with data from the first evaluation. In 

addition, student test scores for 2003–05 were analyzed for 2003–04 grantees. 

The key evaluation questions for the second evaluation are shown below. The first three questions 

were also addressed in the first evaluation, but the final question is new to the second evaluation. 

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

improved library resources? 

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

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

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

coordination? 

• How do reading achievement scores vary in schools that received grants for 1, 2 or 3 years 

compared with matched comparison schools that have not received grants? 

Four data sources were used in the evaluation. Two of them, the survey of school libraries and the 

district performance reports, were updates of data sources used in the first evaluation. New sources for the 

second evaluation were the case study site visit reports and analysis of extant student achievement data. 

These data sources are described below: 

• A survey of school libraries. The survey was sent in fall 2006 to a sample of 400 school 

libraries served by the grant in 2005–06 (grantees) and to a comparison sample of 400 schools 

matched on a variety of district and school characteristics in districts that were eligible for the 

grant in that year (nongrantees). The district-level characteristics that were used in the 

matching process included region, district poverty status, school district type, urbanicity, and 

district enrollment size. The school-level characteristics that were used in the matching process 

included instructional level, school type, enrollment size, type of locale, percentage of students 

belonging to racial or ethnic minorities, and percentage receiving free or reduced-price 

lunches.5

 Special attention was given to identifying similar comparison schools for those few 

grantee schools with unusual characteristics (charter school districts or single-school districts). 

The response rate was 88 percent for the grantees, 83 percent for the nongrantees, and 

85 percent overall. Detailed survey results are shown in Appendix A. Details about the 

methodology are shown in Appendix B, and a copy of the school library survey is shown in 

Appendix C. Survey results covering the 2005–06 school year were compared with results 

from the first evaluation, which examined the 2003–04 school year. 

 

5

 The comparison sample was not matched on prior achievement, which was not available at the time of sampling. 
4 

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

Department of Education within 90 days of the end of the grant period. Components of these 

reports include a description of the project; highlights of key accomplishments; a report on how 

the district met each of its project objectives; a project evaluation; and information on 

expenditures, schools served and professional development. A copy of the report format is 

shown in Appendix D. Performance reports from districts receiving the grant in 2004–05 and 

2005–06 were analyzed for this evaluation. Performance report data from 2003–04 grantees, 

which were analyzed in the first evaluation, were compared with the data from more recent 

grantees. 

• Case study site visit reports. Site visits were made to nine school districts to provide more 

detailed information about school library programs than would be available from survey data. 

The visits focused on promising school library practices in districts that had received LSL 

grants in 2003 through 2005. Thus, the selected sites were not representative of all districts 

receiving LSL grants. Criteria for selecting sites included whether the districts and schools had 

met adequate yearly progress,6

 whether there was some indication that promising practices 

were occurring in the district, whether most of the key staff members were still working in the 

district, and whether as a whole the nine sites reflected diversity on various demographic 

variables. During the site visits, interviews were conducted with the program administrator at 

the district level, principals, school librarians and classroom teachers. In addition, observations 

were made of activities connected to the LSL grant that were continuing to be implemented in 

the districts. Protocols used in the case studies are shown in Appendix E, and case study 

summaries are shown in Appendix F. Site visits were conducted either by one person or by 

two-person teams between November 2006 and January 2007; each person or team visited one 

or two schools. 

• Test scores. Annual test score data on students’ proficiency in reading/language arts were 

obtained from the National Longitudinal School-Level State Assessment Database. The same 

test results are used for accountability purposes under NCLB. These data are available for 

almost all states for multiple years and consist of school-level state assessment results for the 

tested grades. The exact contents of these files vary from one state to another, particularly in 

terms of which grade levels were tested, the number and nature of the tests used, the format of 

the test scores, and the years and subgroups for which summary scores were available. The 

most recent test score data available at the time of this report were for 2005. The data were 

therefore merged with the previous LSL evaluation to measure whether changes in school 

libraries were associated with changes in student test scores. Of the 701 respondents to the 

2004 survey, test scores were available for 553 schools. Baseline data from the year before 

these grants (2002–03) were available for only 40 percent of the respondents. 

The evaluation focused on the projects that received their grants in 2005, the fourth cohort of 

grantees. These grants were implemented in the 2005–06 school year. Of the 85 grants awarded in the 

target year, seven went to consortia of more than one district, and nine went to districts that also had 

received an LSL grant in at least one prior year. 

In 2005–06, approximately 450 schools participated in the program. The characteristics of these 

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

 

6

 Adequate yearly progress is an individual state’s measure of progress toward the goal of 100 percent of students achieving proficiency on state 

academic standards by 2014 in at least reading/language arts and math. It sets the minimum level of proficiency that the state, its school 

districts, and schools must achieve each year on annual tests and related academic indicators. 
5 

schools overall (Exhibit 1-2). The proportion of small schools in the grantee schools (39 percent) was 

somewhat larger than the proportion among all schools in eligible districts (34 percent) and all U.S. 

schools (28 percent). Grantee schools also were somewhat more likely to be elementary schools 

(72 percent) than were all schools in eligible districts (55 percent) or, to a lesser degree, all U.S. schools 

(61 percent). A greater proportion of the grantee schools (37 percent) were located in cities compared 

with all U.S. schools (25 percent), though roughly the same proportion of grantee schools were located in 

cities (37 percent) as all schools in eligible districts (36 percent). Because of the eligibility requirement 

that 20 percent or more families in the LEA be below the poverty line, many suburban districts are not 

eligible for LSL grants. A greater proportion of grantee schools were located in the Northeast and Central 

regions of the country (33 percent and 13 percent respectively) as were all schools in eligible districts (8 

percent and 9 percent respectively). 

In this report, all differences discussed in the text are statistically significant unless noted 

otherwise. For the reader’s convenience, results of statistical testing on differences between grantees and 

nongrantees are shown in the exhibits, except in several of the more complicated exhibits where multiple 

tests might be of interest. District-level data were based on a census; consequently, tests of statistical 

significance were not necessary. 

Exhibit 1-2 

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

School Characteristic Participating Schools 

in Grantee Districts 

All Schools in 

Eligible Districts All U.S. Schools 

Enrollment size 

1–299.............................................. 39 34 28 

300–599.......................................... 44 36 40 

600 or more .................................... 16 30 32 

 

School level 

Elementary...................................... 72 55 61 

Middle/junior high.......................... 10 16 18 

High school/combined/other .......... 17 29 21 

 

Urbanicity 

City................................................. 37 36 25 

Urban fringe ................................... 15 16 33 

Town............................................... 14 16 10 

Rural............................................... 35 33 32 

 

Region 

Northeast ........................................ 33 8 18 

Southeast ........................................ 20 27 21 

Central ............................................ 13 9 28 

West................................................ 33 57 32 

Exhibit reads: In the 2005–06 school year, 39 percent of the schools participating in the LSL program had enrollments of 

between 1 and 299 students. Thirty-four percent of all schools in districts eligible to participate in the LSL program and 28 

percent of all U.S. schools had enrollments of between 1 and 299 students. 

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

Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Common Core of Data (CCD), “Public 

Elementary/Secondary School Universe Survey,” 2003–04. Eligibility file supplied by the U.S. Census Bureau; Grantee file 

supplied by the Improving Literacy Through School Libraries Program. 
6 
7 

Chapter 2 

Research on School Libraries and Literacy 

A number of state-level studies have found an association of certain school library characteristics 

with increased student achievement. This section provides a brief summary of the studies, focusing on 

general evidence of the association of school libraries with student test scores and on characteristics of 

school libraries that are associated with higher student test scores. The analysis of such associations is 

complicated, however, by some methodological issues that arise. These issues are discussed before the 

research findings are presented. 

One fundamental question concerning the validity of the research findings is the question of 

whether a strong library support system is the source of strong academic achievement or whether it is the 

concurrent result of other factors that are also related to high student achievement. For example, many 

studies (including many of the library studies listed below) have found an association between poverty 

and student test scores. Poverty also tends to be interrelated with the level of resources at the school 

(including library resources), making it difficult to separate such socioeconomic variables from school 

variables; that is, it is difficult to know whether higher test scores in a school are attributed to students’ 

socioeconomic background, the level of resources generally available at the school, or the specific level 

of library resources at the school. 

Thus, the library studies mentioned below typically have attempted to statistically adjust for school 

and student characteristics such as school district expenditures per pupil, teacher-pupil ratio, the average 

years of experience of classroom teachers, average teacher salaries, adult educational attainment, children 

in poverty, and racial or ethnic demographics. Relationships between library characteristics and improved 

test scores continued to hold after making such adjustments (Burgin and Bracy 2003). The study reports 

varied in the extent to which they provided information on the statistical methodology that was used, but 

at a minimum, adjustments for poverty levels and other school or community characteristics were 

included in studies in the following eight states: Alaska, Pennsylvania, Colorado (two studies), Oregon, 

Iowa, New Mexico, North Carolina and Texas. 

The analysis of achievement in this report has a particular strength because of the capacity to 

examine changes in library resources over time, while the socioeconomic characteristics are generally less 

subject to changes over time. Even the general level of resources at the school is likely to change less 

dramatically than the library resources because of the comparative size of the grants with respect to 

school libraries’ typical budgets. 

Some studies have differentiated between direct and indirect relationships with test scores. For 

example, Oregon found that information resources and technology and library media center usage all 

showed direct relationships with student test scores, while library media staffing levels, staff activities and 

library media expenditures showed indirect relationships. 

Association of School Libraries With Student Test Scores 

General results of state-level studies showing positive relationships between library characteristics 

and student test scores are presented below. The specific factors that were associated with improved test 

scores are discussed later in this chapter. 

Alaska. Test scores on the California Achievement Tests tended to be higher if schools had 

librarians (especially full-time librarians) and, regardless of staffing, if schools had higher amounts of 
8 

staff time devoted to delivering library and information literacy instruction to students and providing inservice training to teachers and other staff members (Burgin and Bracy 2003). 

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

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

variation in reading scores (Lance, Welborn and Hamilton-Pennell 1992). In a second study, he found 

increases in Colorado Student Assessment Program reading scores of up to 18 percent in the fourth grade 

and up to 10 percent to 15 percent in the seventh grade (Lance, Rodney and Hamilton-Pennell 2000a ). 

Florida. Test scores were “more than 20 percent higher in elementary schools where library media 

staffing is at 80 hours per week or more than in schools with less than 60 hours per week” (Baumbach 

2002, 4). 

Illinois. Higher achievement on the state reading test was associated with more hours of flexible 

library scheduling, higher library staffing levels, more weekly hours of librarian staffing, more time spent 

on selected library activities, larger and more current library collections, more library computers 

connected to the Internet, more money spent on libraries, and higher student usage of the library (Illinois 

School Library Media Association 2005). 

Indiana. Scores on the Indiana Statewide Testing for Educational Progress were associated with 

the presence of a full-time library media specialist who had been at the school for at least three years and 

who excelled at information access and administrative services (Scholastic Library Publishing 2008). 

Iowa. Reading scores were higher at schools with strong library media centers at all three levels 

(elementary, middle school and high school) (Scholastic Library Publishing 2008). 

Massachusetts. Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System scores tended to be higher in 

schools with school library programs at all grade levels (Scholastic Library Publishing 2008). 

Michigan. Reading scores on the Michigan Educational Assessment Program were related to the 

presence of a qualified school librarian and use of a flexible schedule (Rodney, Lance and HamiltonPennell 2003).

Minnesota. Scores on the Minnesota Comprehensive Assessment were related to the library budget 

for books and materials and to the presence of a full-time media specialist (Baxter and Smalley 2003). 

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

availability of school library program services (Scholastic Library Publishing 2008). 

New Mexico. Achievement scores were positively associated with school library programs (Lance, 

Rodney and Hamilton-Pennell 2002). 

North Carolina. Standardized reading and English scores tended to be higher if school libraries 

were staffed and open more hours, had newer books, spent more per 100 students on books and electronic 

access to information, and subscribed to CD-ROM and online periodical services (Burgin and Bracy 

2003). 

Oregon. Test scores on the Oregon state reading test tended to be higher in grades 5, 8, and 10 if 

school libraries had characteristics such as large print collections, more visits by students, and more staff 

members (Burgin and Bracy 2003). 
9 

Pennsylvania. Using bivariate and partial correlations, Pennsylvania System of School Assessment 

reading scores tended to increase as library staffing increased, even after adjusting for school conditions 

such as per pupil expenditures and the teacher-pupil ratio or for community conditions such as poverty 

and low educational attainment (Lance, Rodney and Hamilton-Pennell 2000b). 

Texas. Texas Assessment of Academic Skills scores were higher in schools with librarians and 

were related to library staffing levels, collection sizes, librarian interaction with teachers and students, and 

technology levels (Scholastic Library Publishing 2008). 

Wisconsin. Student academic performance was positively associated with staffing the school 

library with full-time certified library media specialists and aides (Smith 2006). 

Characteristics That Are Associated With Higher Student Test Scores 

Many factors have been specifically associated with improved student test scores (Exhibit 2-1). 

The exhibit below includes the factors that were mentioned in multiple studies. 

These individual factors may not be sufficient by themselves but, rather, may need to be part of a 

larger package to influence student achievement. For example, a study in Pennsylvania found that having 

a large collection was important only when also combined with a schoolwide initiative to integrate 

information literacy into the school’s approach to standards and curricula (Lance, Rodney and HamiltonPennell 2000b, 45). School characteristics also were interrelated with differences in the relationship 

between school libraries and student test scores. Lonsdale notes that “some research suggests that the 

impact of the school library diminishes as students move through high school” (Lonsdale 2003, 26). 
10 

Exhibit 2-1 

Library Services and Characteristics Positively Associated With Student Test Scores 

Library Service/Characteristic State 

Staffing/availability 

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

Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania

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

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

Having a certified school library media 

specialist 

Florida, Michigan, Wisconsin 

Professional development/training 

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

Collaboration/cooperation 

Cooperative relationships with public 

libraries 

Alaska 

Collaboration between library media 

specialists and teachers 

Colorado, Iowa, Oregon 

Electronic linkages and technology 

Facilities that reach the Internet Alaska, Florida 

Networked linkages with classrooms and 

other instructional sites 

Colorado, Illinois, Oregon, Pennsylvania 

Automated collections Massachusetts 

Collections and resources 

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

Pennsylvania, Texas

Periodical subscriptions per 100 students Colorado, Oregon, Texas 

Video collections per 100 students Iowa, Texas 

Audio materials Iowa 

Electronic reference titles per 100 students Colorado 

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

Texas 

Recency of copyright dates Iowa, North Carolina 

Usage 

Usage of library (as measured by the number 

of visits to the library media center or by a 

high number of books checked out per 

student) 

Colorado, Florida, Illinois, Massachusetts, Oregon 

Exhibit reads: The number of hours of staffing at the library was positively associated with student test scores in Colorado, 

Florida, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Massachusetts, North Carolina, Oregon and Pennsylvania. 

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

p.79.
11 

Chapter 3 

Program Implementation 

Key Findings 

• Districts often reported selecting schools to participate in the grant based on various kinds of 

disadvantages at those schools such as lack of library resources, poverty level and those identified 

for improvement under No Child Left Behind. 

• Participation in the school selection process had increased for most staff members and had 

decreased for district school library coordinators since the first LSL evaluation. 

• In 2005–06, more than half (57 percent) of the program funds were spent on resources, including 

books. This level was a decrease from 2003–04 when 68 percent of the funds were spent on 

resources. 

• After receiving the LSL grants, the grantees roughly tripled their expenditures for books and 

subscriptions as well as for computer hardware. By contrast, nongrantees showed little change in 

these categories. 

The LSL program provides competitive grant awards to school districts. In the 2004–05 and 2005–

06 school years, about half of the districts receiving LSL awards had enrollments of 2,000 or more 

students, and almost half received grants of more than $200,000 (Exhibit 3-1). About half of the districts 

were located in rural areas, and most of the other districts were in cities or towns. 

Districts determine which schools will participate in the grant. This chapter describes the basis used 

to make these decisions and the personnel involved in making them. It also discusses the approach used to 

distribute grant money to the schools and the personnel involved in that decision. In addition, it describes 

how the grant money was spent, other outside support for literacy and libraries, and how schools allocate 

library funds. 
12 

Exhibit 3-1 

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

2004–05 2005–06 District Characteristic Number Percentage Number Percentage 

 Total............................... 92 100 85 100 

 

District enrollment size 

Fewer than 500............... 20 22 15 18 

500–1,999 ...................... 25 27 25 29 

2,000 or more................. 47 51 45 53 

 

Urbanicity 

City ................................ 22 24 18 21 

Urban fringe................... 6 7 10 12 

Town.............................. 19 21 16 19 

Rural .............................. 45 49 41 48 

 

Region 

Northeast........................ 12 13 19 22 

Southeast........................ 27 29 20 24 

Central............................ 11 12 12 14 

West ............................... 42 46 34 40 

 

Amount of grant 

Up to $100,000 .............. 19 21 13 15 

$101,000–$200,000 ....... 31 34 28 33 

More than $200,000....... 42 46 44 52 

Exhibit reads: In the 2004–05 school year, 20 districts receiving LSL grants had a district enrollment of fewer than 500 students. 

Districts of this size represented 22 percent of all districts receiving an LSL grant that year. 

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

Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Common Core of Data (CCD), “Public 

Elementary/Secondary School Universe Survey,” 2003–04. Grantee data file supplied by the Improving Literacy Through School 

Libraries Program. 

How Districts Allocate Program Funds 

Although the grants for the LSL program were awarded to districts, most of the activities funded by 

the grants occurred at the school level. Most districts indicated which schools they planned to serve as a 

part of their grant applications, but they could make changes after the grant was awarded. 
13 

Generally, the approaches used 

by districts to select schools for 

participation in the grant have been 

about the same each year between 

2003–04 and 2005–06 (Exhibits 3-2 and 

A-1). About half of the districts served 

all schools in the district, an approach 

used by 84 percent of the districts with 

enrollments of less than 500 students. 

Only high-poverty districts can 

participate in the LSL program, but 

needs differ within districts. About a 

third of the districts selected the 

neediest schools based on the lack of 

library resources. One change since 

2003–04 is that more districts have 

selected schools that are considered 

needy on the basis of the poverty or 

were identified for improvement under 

No Child Left Behind. Fortytwo percent of school districts in urban 

areas used this last approach compared 

with less than one-fifth of districts in 

other types of communities. In all three 

years examined, 14 percent of the 

districts receiving grant awards 

contained only one school; 

consequently, they did not need to make 

any school selection decisions. 

Exhibit 3-2 

Methods Districts Use to Select Schools for 

Participation in the LSL Grant During the 

2005–06, 2004–05, and 2003–04 School Years

11

14

4

12

31

36

58

17

14

22

26

37

33

49

9

14

20

22

26

36

53

0 20 40 60 80 100

Other

District had only one school

Identified for improvement under

No Child Left Behind

Need, based on poverty

All schools serving a particular 

grade level

Need, based on library resources

All schools in district

Percentage

2005–06

2004–05

2003–04

No Child Left Behind

Exhibit reads: Selecting all schools in the district for participation in the 

LSL grant was a selection method used by 53 percent of the grantee districts 

in 2005–06, 49 percent in 2004–05, and 58 percent in 2003–04. 

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

participation. 

Source: First and second evaluations, district performance report question 1.
14 

Methods used by districts to 

distribute grant money to schools, 

have been about the same with minor 

variations from year to year. For 

example, in 2003–04 and 2005–06, 

about a third of the districts gave all 

schools an equal amount of grant 

funds, but only 18 percent of the 

districts used this approach in 2004–05 

(Exhibits 3-3, 3-4, and A-1). In 2003–

04, 8 percent of the districts did the 

purchasing at the district level, while 

16 percent used this approach in 2005–

06. 

Exhibit 3-3 

Methods Used to Distribute Grant Money to Schools, 

2005–06 School Year

34%

19%

16%

31%

All schools equal

Other

Per pupil basis

Purchasing at

district level

Exhibit reads: Nineteen percent of grantee districts distributed grant money 

to schools on a per pupil basis. 

Source: Second evaluation, district performance report question 14. 

Exhibit 3-4 

Percentage of Districts Using Various Methods 

to Distribute Grant Money to Schools, 2005–06, 

2004–05, and 2003–04 School Years 

38

8

22

33

39

19

24

18

34

16

19

31

0 20 40 60 80 100

Other

Purchasing at

district level

Per-pupil basis

All schools

equal

Percentage

2005–06

2004–05

2003–04

Exhibit reads: Distributing grant money to all schools equally was the 

method used by 31 percent of the grantee districts in 2005–06, 18 percent in 

2004–05 and 33 percent in 2003–04. 

Source: First and second evaluations, district performance report question 

14. 
15 

Participation in the school selection process had increased for most staff members and decreased for 

district school library coordinators since the first LSL evaluation (Exhibits 3-5, A-2, A-3, and A-4). 

School librarians were involved in the school selection decision in most districts (84 percent), although 

the percentage had declined. Virtually all (95 percent) of the districts involved school librarians in the 

decisions for spending grant money, as had also been the case in the first evaluation. Participation by 

reading specialists in spending decisions increased from 45 percent to 60 percent of the districts. 

Participation in the spending decisions also increased for reading curriculum coordinators and parents, but 

decreased for district school library coordinators and classroom teachers. 

Exhibit 3-5 

Percentage of Districts Using Various Personnel to Decide Which Schools to Serve 

and How Grant Funds Should Be Spent, 2005–06 and 2003–04 School Years 

2005–06 school year 

45

45

60

82

54

73

54

95

35

40

43

47

52

77

82

84

0 20 40 60 80 100

Parents

Reading curriculum coordinator

Reading specialists

Classroom teachers

District school library coordinator

Principal(s)

Superintendent(s)

School librarians

Percentage

Which schools to

serve

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

Percentage

Which schools to

serve

How grant funds

should be spent

Exhibit reads: In the 2005–06 school year, school librarians were involved in the decision with respect to which schools to serve 

in 84 percent of the districts. School librarians were involved in deciding how grant funds should be spent in 95 percent of the 

districts.

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

Five types of activities can be 

funded under the LSL program. In 

2005–06, more than half (57 percent) of 

the program funds were spent on 

resources, including books. This level 

of funding was a decrease from 2003–

04 when 68 percent of the funds were 

spent on resources (Exhibits 3-6, A-5, 

and A-6). Spending on advanced 

technology grew from 11 percent in 

2003–04 to 20 percent in 2005–06. 

Perhaps one reason for this change is 

that in the earlier year, the LSL 

program cut technology purchases from 

the budgets of many applications 

because other funding sources were 

available, but that was not the case in 

the later year. 

Exhibit 3-6 

Percentage of Grant Funding Spent by Category, 

2005–06 School Year

57%

20%

8%

3%

5%

8%

Resources, including books

Advanced technology

Nonschool library hours

Linkage to Internet and other

networks

Professional development

Other

Exhibit reads: Fifty-seven percent of grant funds was spent on resources, 

including books. 

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

Source: Second evaluation, district performance report question 12. 
16 

Other Outside Support for Literacy and Libraries 

Funding for literacy programs in high-poverty districts is provided by several other federal 

programs in addition to LSL. Some school libraries also receive funding from nonfederal sources. In the 

evaluation, we compared the extent to which grantees and nongrantees used these outside funding 

sources. 

Significantly more LSL grantees 

than nongrantees participated in the 

programs of Title I (86 percent versus 

80 percent), Reading First (29 percent 

versus 19 percent), and 21st Century 

Community Learning Centers (26 

percent versus 17 percent) (Exhibit 3-

7). There was also an increase in LSL 

grantees participating in Reading First, 

from 15 percent in 2003–04 to 29 

percent in 2005–06. Less than 

10 percent of the LSL grantees 

participated in Comprehensive School 

Reform or Early Reading First. 

Exhibit 3-7 

Percentage of School Libraries Receiving Funding From 

Various Federal Education Programs, by Grantee Status, 

2005–06 School Year

5

7

17

19

80

4

7

26

29

86

0 20 40 60 80 100

Early Reading First

Comprehensive School Reform

21st Century Community 

Learning Centers

Reading First

Title 1

Percentage

Grantee

Nongrantee

*

*

*

Exhibit reads: Eighty-six percent of the grantees received Title I funding, 

compared with 80 percent of the nongrantees. The difference is statistically 

significant (p ≤ .05). 

Note: The asterisks (*) indicate that there is a statistically significant 

difference (i.e., p-value ≤ .05) between grantee and nongrantee school 

libraries. 

Source: Second evaluation, school library media center survey question 43.
17 

Other possible sources of 

funding for school libraries include a 

state allotment, not-for-profit groups 

and corporate donors. About half of the 

grantees (50 percent) and nongrantees 

(53 percent) received funding from a 

state allotment (Exhibit 3-7). 

Significantly more grantees (15 

percent) than nongrantees (8 percent) 

received funding from a not-for-profit 

group, while significantly fewer 

grantees (1 percent) than nongrantees 

(5 percent) received funding from 

corporate donors. 

How Schools Allocate Funds 

LSL school districts distributed 

$18.1 million in grant funding in both 

2004–05 and 2005–06. Roughly threefourths of the funds were used to 

acquire resources, including not only 

advanced technology such as new 

computers and interactive whiteboards 

(20 percent in 2005–06) but also books 

and other resources (57 percent in 

2005–06) (Exhibits 3-9 and A-6). In 

both years, the percentage spent on 

advanced technology was well above that for 2003–04 (20–23 percent versus 11 percent). The remaining 

funds were used for operating a library media center in nonschool hours (8 percent–9 percent in both 

years), professional development (4 percent–5 percent), linkage to the Internet and other networks 

(2 percent–3 percent), and other uses (8 percent–12 percent). Urban school districts had a somewhat 

different pattern from other districts, putting less into advanced technology (6 percent versus 20 percent–

25 percent among all other districts) and more into the acquisition of other resources (73 percent versus 

49 percent–52 percent in towns and rural areas) (Exhibit A-5). 

Exhibit 3-8 

Percentage of School Libraries Receiving Funding From 

Various Outside Sources During the 2005–06 School Year, 

by Grantee Status 

5

8

53

1

15

50

0 20 40 60 80 100

Corporate donors

Not-for-profit

group

State allotment

Percentage

Grantee

Nongrantee

*

*

Exhibit reads: Fifty percent of grantees received state allotment funding, 

compared with 53 percent of nongrantees. The difference is not statistically 

significant. 

Note: The asterisks (*) indicate that there is a statistically significant 

difference (i.e., p-value ≤ .05) between grantee and nongrantee school 

libraries. 

Source: Second evaluation, school library media center survey question 44. 
18 

Exhibit 3-9 

Percentage of LSL Funds Spent by Districts, 

2005–06, 2004–05 and 2003–04 School Years 

68

52

57

11

23

20

11

9

8

4

5

3

2

3

6

12

8

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

2003–04

2004–05

2005–06

Year

Percentage of funds

Resources, including books Advanced technology

Nonschool library hours Professional development

Linkage to Internet and other networks Other

1

Exhibit reads: In the 2005–06 school year, districts spent 57 percent of their LSL funds on resources, including books; 20 percent 

on advanced technology; 8 percent on nonschool library hours; 5 percent on professional development; 3 percent on linkage to 

Internet and other networks; and 8 percent on other categories. 

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

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

Looking only at acquisitions, 

school libraries tended to allocate the 

greatest amount of their funds to 

materials such as books and 

subscriptions and the next most to 

computer hardware (Exhibits 3-10 and 

A-7). After receiving the LSL grants, 

the grantees roughly tripled the 

amounts for books and subscriptions 

and for computer hardware. By 

contrast, nongrantees showed little 

change in these categories. Among the 

grantees, some of the greatest changes 

were among (a) small schools (which 

quadrupled expenditures on books and 

subscriptions and made an almost sixfold increase in computer hardware 

expenditures), (b) rural schools (which 

almost quadrupled expenditures for 

books and subscriptions and made a 

sevenfold increase in computer 

hardware expenditures), and (c) schools 

with $12 or less in expenditures per 

student (which made an almost tenfold 

increase for books and subscriptions 

and a tenfold increase on computer 

Exhibit 3-10 

Mean Expenditures on Materials by School Libraries, 

by Grantee Status, 2004–05 and 2005–06 School Years 

$7,835

$26,008

$7,315 $8,085

$1,595

$5,959

$1,871 $1,838

$1,821

$873 $673 $526

$0

$10,000

$20,000

$30,000

$40,000

2004–05 2005–06 2004–05 2005–06

Grantees Nongrantees

Books and subscriptions Computer hardware Audiovisual equipment

Grantees Nongrantees

Exhibit reads: In the 2004–05 school year, grantees spent an average of 

$7,835 on books and subscriptions, $1,595 on computer hardware, and $873 

on audiovisual equipment. 

Source: Second evaluation, school library media center survey questions 33, 

34, and 35. 
19 

hardware). In the first evaluation, when grants were smaller, grantees roughly doubled their expenditures 

on books and subscriptions and on computer hardware. In both evaluations, about 75 percent of grantees’ 

expenditures on materials were on books and 18 percent were on computer hardware. 

In 2005–06, library media 

centers devoted the major part of their 

expenditures for materials to getting 

books: 80 percent of grantees’ 

expenditures and 69 percent of 

nongrantees’ expenditures were for 

books (Exhibits 3-11 and A-8). 

Because grantees also spent more total 

funds than nongrantees, the difference 

between grantees and nongrantees was 

larger in dollar terms, with grantees 

spending an average of $24,000 on 

books compared with $5,800 among 

nongrantees. Among the grantees, rural 

schools spent the lowest proportion on 

books (71 percent versus 82 to 

87 percent among other districts). 

In summary, since the first 

evaluation, the methods used by 

districts to select schools for LSL grant 

participation and distribute grant 

money to them have shown little 

change. Participation in the school 

selection process had increased for 

most staffing categories but had 

decreased for district school library coordinators, while participation by reading specialists in spending 

decisions had increased. 

Districts spent a smaller proportion of grant funds on resources, including books and a greater 

proportion on advanced technology, since the first evaluation. After receiving the LSL grants, the 

grantees roughly tripled the amount of expenditures for books and subscriptions and for computer 

hardware. By contrast, nongrantees showed little change in these categories. 

Significantly more grantees than nongrantees received funding from not-for-profit groups and 

participated in the Title I, Reading First, and 21st Century Community Learning Centers programs. 

Exhibit 3-11 

Mean Expenditures by School Libraries on Selected 

Materials, by Grantee Status, 

2005–06 School Year 

$23,979

$5,829

$2,523

$1,040

$550

$962

$711

$338

$754

$65

$338

$833

$0

$5,000

$10,000

$15,000

$20,000

$25,000

$30,000

Grantees Nongrantees

Other

CD-ROM titles

Electronic subscriptions

Print or microform subscriptions

Video materials

Books

Grantees Nongrantees

Exhibit reads: Grantees spent an average of $23,979 on books and $1,040 

on video materials. 

Source: Second evaluation, school library media center survey questions 32 

and 33. 
20 
21 

Chapter 4

School-Level Changes Associated With the Program 

Key Findings 

• Among those districts conducting needs assessments, grantees identified significantly more needs 

compared with nongrantees, and they were more apt to make changes as a result. 

• Before the grant, significantly fewer grantees than nongrantees considered their reading/English 

materials to be adequate or excellent. In contrast, during the grant year, significantly more grantees 

than nongrantees considered their overall reading/English literature, print materials and computer 

software to be adequate or excellent. The first evaluation found that overall, the grants seemed to 

compensate for grantees’ earlier disadvantages and bring them to rough equality with the 

nongrantees whereas the second evaluation found that the grants enabled the grantees to surpass the 

nongrantees. 

• Before receiving the LSL grants, the grantees provided significantly fewer nonschool hours of 

access than nongrantees, but this difference was eliminated after receiving the grants. 

• Overall, grantees were more likely than nongrantees to have increased services by establishing new 

programs or expanding existing programs. Many of the increased services involved collaboration 

between library media staff members and classroom teachers and other school staff members. 

• In the first evaluation, school libraries receiving two successive LSL grants tended to be more 

disadvantaged than those receiving grants only in 2003–04. In contrast, in the second evaluation, the 

repeat grantees appear to have started in 2004–05 with fewer disadvantages than the other grantees. 

Despite being more advantaged than those receiving grants only in 2003–04, the repeat grantees 

were still disadvantaged compared with the nongrantees on some measures. 

This chapter examines many aspects of a school library that might be influenced by the program, 

including the conducting of a needs assessment, resources available, extended hours, services offered, 

staffing professional development, and collaboration with teachers. 

Needs Assessment 

The LSL legislation states that district applications must contain 

 a needs assessment relating to the need for school library media improvement, based on the age and 

condition of school library media resources, including book collections, access of school library 

media centers to advanced technology, and the availability of well-trained, professionally certified 

school library media specialists, in schools served.7

 

About half (51 percent) of the grantees and a third (34 percent) of the nongrantees conducted a 

needs assessment within the last two years, a significant difference (Exhibit A-9). These results were the 

same as those found in the first LSL evaluation. 

 

7

 Section 1251(f)(2)(A) of the ESEA.
22 

Grantee school libraries that conducted needs assessments within the last two years identified 

significantly greater needs than nongrantees in two of the five resource-related areas (Exhibits 4-1, A-9 

and A-10). Virtually all (95 percent) of the grantees identified the need for more-up-to date materials 

compared with 85 percent of the nongrantees, a significant difference. Significantly more grantees 

(92 percent) than nongrantees (78 percent) made changes to increase the availability of up-to-date 

materials in response to the needs assessment. More computer equipment was the second most common 

resource-related need, but the apparent differences between grantees and nongrantees are not significant. 

Although more space was identified by significantly more grantees (51 percent) than nongrantees 

(33 percent), the same percentage (13 percent) made changes to address this need. Overall, the percentage 

of grantees and nongrantees identifying various needs and making changes as a result was about the same 

in the first and second evaluations. 

Exhibit 4-1 

Percentage of School Libraries Identifying Various Resource-Related Needs Through a Needs 

Assessment, and the Percentage That Made Changes, by Grantee Status, Fall 2006 

28

22

13

13

42

45

49

60

78

0 20 40 60 80 100

Nongrantee

Grantee

Nongrantee

Grantee

Nongrantee

Grantee

Nongrantee

Grantee

Nongrantee

Grantee

Percentage

Made changes

Identified needs not addressed

More up-to-date

materials

More computer 

equipment

More materials in 

languages other 

than English

More space

Rewiring the library

 95*

85

80

70

51

51

51*

33

29

33

92*

Exhibit reads: Ninety-five percent of the grantees identified a need for more up-to-date materials compared with 85 percent of the 

nongrantees. Ninety-two percent of the grantees made changes to address this need compared with 78 percent of the nongrantees. 

Both differences are statistically significant (p ≤ .05). 

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

nongrantee school libraries. Percentages are based on school libraries that had done a needs assessment. 

Source: Second evaluation, school library media center survey question 40. 
23 

Grantees were more likely than nongrantees to identify staffing-related needs and to make 

necessary changes. For example, three-fourths (75 percent) of the grantees identified the need for more 

hours in which the library is open while about two-fifths (41 percent) of the nongrantees identified this 

need, a significant difference (Exhibits 4-2, A-9 and A-10). Significantly more grantees (62 percent) than 

nongrantees (24 percent) made a change to address this need. A similar pattern was found for the need for 

more professional development and for more time for planning with teachers. Overall, the data from the 

first and second evaluations were similar, with grantees identifying greater staffing-related needs and 

making changes to address the needs. However, for grantees, the need for more professional development 

was significantly greater in the second evaluation (75 percent) compared with the first (60 percent). 

Exhibit 4-2 

Percentage of School Libraries Identifying Various Staffing-Related Needs Through a Needs 

Assessment, and the Percentage That Made Changes, by Grantee Status, Fall 2006 

31

28

10

21

41

24

21*

39*

68*

62*

0 20 40 60 80 100

Nongrantee

Grantee

Nongrantee

Grantee

Nongrantee

Grantee

Nongrantee

Grantee

Nongrantee

Grantee

Percentage

Made changes

Identified needs not

addressed

More hours in

which the library

is open

More professional 

development

More time for 

planning with

teachers

More library staff

Flexible scheduling

 75*

41

75*

57

64*

40

55*

33

54

46

Exhibit reads: Seventy-five percent of the grantees identified a need for more hours in which the library is open compared with

41 percent of the nongrantees. Sixty-two percent of the grantees made a change to address this need compared with 24 percent of

the nongrantees. Both differences are statistically significant (p ≤ .05). 

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

nongrantee school libraries. Percentages are based on school libraries that had done a needs assessment. 

Source: Second evaluation, school library media center survey question 40. 
24 

Examples of Needs Assessments, Drawn From the Case Studies 

Several approaches used to determine needs 

A rural district in an Eastern state used several approaches to determine library needs, which 

included reviewing student test score data, interviewing teachers, assessing library circulation rates, 

and reviewing inventories to find possible gaps in the resources. They found that 60 percent of the 

library collection had an average copyright date before 1993, and approximately 50 percent was in poor 

condition. Gaps identified included books for nonreaders and emergent readers as well as science and 

social studies resources. 

A very outdated library 

In a small Eastern town, a very experienced librarian who was new to the district was assigned to 

an extremely outdated library containing four computers, a magazine collection beginning in the 1970s, 

and at least one book suggesting that people may travel to the moon some time in the future. This 

discovery became the impetus for her to take a leading role in applying for an LSL grant. 

Resources 

Upgrading the resources in school libraries is a major purpose of the LSL program. The types of 

resources that can be acquired under the program include books and advanced technology. In addition, the 

program facilitates linkages through the Internet and other resource-sharing networks with other libraries. 

Because most LSL program funds have been spent on resources, this evaluation compared grantee and 

nongrantee school libraries with respect to the adequacy of their collections, recency of holdings, kinds of 

equipment located in the school library, availability of electronic services, computer access to catalogs of 

other libraries, and cooperative activities with local public libraries. Some comparisons were made 

between resources during the grant year (2005–06) and the year before the grant (2004–05) as well as 

between the first and second evaluations. 
25 

 Collection 

The first evaluation found that overall, the grants seemed to compensate for grantees’ earlier 

disadvantages and bring them to rough equality with the nongrantees whereas the second evaluation 

found that the grants enabled the grantees to surpass the nongrantees. In spring 2005, before the grant, 

significantly fewer grantees considered their materials to be adequate or excellent compared with 

nongrantees for all types of materials, namely, overall reading/English literature, print materials, 

video/audiovisual materials and computer software (Exhibits 4-3, A-11, and A-12). In contrast, in spring 

2006, during the grant year, significantly more of the grantees considered their overall reading/English 

literature, print materials and computer software to be adequate or excellent compared with nongrantees. 

Exhibit 4-3 

Percentage of School Libraries Reporting That Their Holdings Were Excellent or Adequate in 

Supporting the Instructional Program in English, by Type of Material and Grantee Status, Spring 

2005 and 2006 

43

48

65

66

56*

63*

77*

78*

0 20 40 60 80 100

Nongrantee

Grantee

Nongrantee

Grantee

Nongrantee

Grantee

Nongrantee

Grantee

Percentage

Percentage

providing rating

in 2005

Increase from

2005 to 2006

Overall reading/

English literature

Print materials

Video/audiovisual 

materials

Computer software

90

84

89*

79

65

67

64*

57

Exhibit reads: In 2005, 66 percent of the grantees reported that their overall reading/English literature holdings were excellent or 

adequate compared with 78 percent of the nongrantees. This difference is statistically significant (p ≤ .05). In 2006, 90 percent of 

the grantees reported that their overall reading/English literature holdings were excellent or adequate compared with 84 percent 

of the nongrantees. This difference is not statistically significant. 

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

nongrantee school libraries. 

Source: Second evaluation, school library media center survey question 20.
26 

Significantly more grantees considered their resources such as materials with high interest and low 

vocabulary or multicultural materials to be adequate or excellent in spring 2006, the grant year, compared 

with their responses for spring 2005, the year before the grant (Exhibits 4-4, A-13, and A-14). In contrast, 

there were no significant differences between the grant year and the year before the grant for the 

nongrantees. (Further details about the responses can be found in Exhibit A-13.) 

Exhibit 4-4 

Percentage of School Libraries Reporting That Their Resources Were Excellent or Adequate in the 

Grant Year and the Year Before the Grant Year, by Type of Resource and Grantee Status, 

Spring 2006 and 2005 

Grantees 

32

49

57

68

49

72

85

86

88

61

0 20 40 60 80 100

English as a second

language

Proprietary online

resources/subscriptions

Multicultural materials

High interest-low

vocabulary

Picture books/easy

readers

Percentage

Grant year (2006)

Year before grant

(2005)

Nongrantees 

36

61

74

72

41

64

76

79

79

70

0 20 40 60 80 100

English as a second

language

Proprietary online

resources/subscriptions

Multicultural materials

High interest-low

vocabulary

Picture books/easy

readers

Percentage

Grant year (2006)

Year before grant

(2005)

Exhibit reads: In the grant year, 88 percent of the grantees reported that their resources of picture books/easy readers were 

excellent or adequate. In the year before the grant, 68 percent of the grantees reported that these resources were excellent or

adequate. 

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

Grantees reported purchasing more than double the number of books and video materials that 

nongrantees purchased, both of which are significant differences (Exhibit 4-5). Holdings at the end of the 

grant year also differed for grantees and nongrantees after receipt of the grant. Grantees had significantly 

fewer books and video materials than the nongrantees (9,451 versus 11,892 for books) and (290 versus 

392 for video materials), even though these figures represented areas in which they had made 

significantly more acquisitions than the nongrantees. In contrast, in the first LSL evaluation, the holdings 

of the grantees and nongrantees were similar at the end of the grant year. 
27 

Exhibit 4-5 

Mean Acquisitions and Holdings of Grantee and Nongrantee 

School Libraries, by Type of Material, 2005–06 School Year 

Acquired During 2005–06 Total Number Held 

Type of Material at the End of 2005–06 

Grantee Nongrantee Grantee Nongrantee 

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

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

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

Print or microform periodical 

subscriptions....................................... 10 10 17 24 

Electronic subscriptions........................... 1 2 1 3* 

Exhibit reads: The average number of books acquired by grantees was 1,611 compared with 784 by nongrantees. This difference 

is statistically significant (p ≤ .05). 

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

nongrantee school libraries. 

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

Copyright year was used as an indication of the recency of the materials in the school library. In 

fall 2006, after the grant had been implemented, the average copyright year for the nonfiction collection 

was 1993 for grantees and 1992 for nongrantees, a statistically significant difference (Exhibit A-15). For 

fiction, the average copyright year was 1992 for both grantees and nongrantees. This finding contrasts 

with the findings of the first evaluation in which the nongrantees had a more recent fiction collection and 

the average copyright year of the nonfiction collection was the same for grantees and nongrantees. 

The age of atlases in both grantee and nongrantee school libraries was similar in fall 2006, after the 

grant had been implemented (Exhibit A-15). However, grantees had significantly more recent general 

encyclopedias compared with nongrantees (Exhibits 4-6 and A-15). This finding contrasts with the results 

of the first evaluation in which no differences were found between grantees and nongrantees with respect 

to the age of their most recent encyclopedia. 

Exhibit 4-6 

Copyright Date of School Libraries’ Most Recent General Encyclopedia, 

by Grantee Status, Fall 2006 

Grantees

16%

21%

63%*

2005 or 2006

2003 or 2004

2002 or earlier

 

Nongrantees

35%*

20%

45%

Exhibit reads: For 63 percent of the grantees, 2005 or 2006 was the copyright date of their most recent general encyclopedia, 

compared with 45 percent of the nongrantees. This difference is statistically significant (p ≤ .05). 

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

nongrantee school libraries. 

Source: Second evaluation, school library media center survey question 23.
28 

The importance of various factors in selecting books to add to the library’s collection was generally 

quite similar to those in the first LSL evaluation. In both evaluations significantly more grantees than 

nongrantees (63 percent versus 52 percent in 2006) considered consultation with a reading specialist to be 

very or somewhat important (Exhibits 4-7, A-16, and A-17). Factors that were mentioned by at least 

90 percent of the respondents as being very or somewhat important were that books were chosen to 

strengthen a particular subject, that they were selected in consultation with classroom teachers, and that 

they won awards. 

Exhibit 4-7 

Percentage of School Libraries Indicating That Various Factors Were Very or Somewhat 

Important in Selecting Books to Add to Their Collection, by Grantee Status, Fall 2006 

34

42

37

49

37

30

64

58

75

77

81

87

19

21

35

29

53

56

31

35

19

19

13

10

0 20 40 60 80 100

Nongrantee

Grantee

Nongrantee

Grantee

Nongrantee

Grantee

Nongrantee

Grantee

Nongrantee

Grantee

Nongrantee

Grantee

Percentage

Strengthen 

particular subject 

Consultation with 

classroom teachers

Books that won 

awards

Consultation with 

reading specialist

Focus on categories 

that become quickly 

outdated

Lost books were 

replaced

97

94

96

93

93

94

85

91*

78*

72

63*

52

Very important

Somewhat important

Exhibit reads: Ninety-seven percent of grantees indicated that strengthening a particular subject was a very (87 percent) or 

somewhat (10 percent) important factor in selecting books to add to their collection compared with 94 percent of nongrantees. 

This difference is not statistically significant. 

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

nongrantee school libraries. Details may not add to total because of rounding. 

Source: Second evaluation, school library media center survey question 25. 
29 

Examples of Materials Purchased With Grant Money, Drawn From the Case Studies 

Large quantity of books purchased 

The purchase of a substantial number of books and other resources was mentioned as a grantrelated activity during all site visits. One district in a small Southern town hired two paraprofessionals 

to help with processing the 12,000 books funded by the grant, an average of four books per student. 

Books aligned with state standards 

Selecting books that align with new state standards in English language arts, science, and social 

studies was a component of one LSL project in a small Southern town. For example, a new standard 

involves acquiring knowledge of state authors and significant text created by them. Therefore, some 

biographies were purchased. Also, the primary school (grades pre-K–2) does not have textbooks for 

science or social studies. Under the LSL grant, the library purchased six-packs of books that cover the 

standards in these subjects and are used in guided reading lessons. The high school also targeted 

science and social studies as areas needing updating. 

Family literacy kits 

In a very high-poverty district located on the fringe of a midsize city along the U.S.-Mexican 

border, a majority of the parents are first-generation Americans, have limited English proficiency, and 

come from cultures in which parents do not generally participate in the education process. Family 

literacy kits were purchased through the grant for each school so parents could improve their literacy 

skills along with their children. A two-day program was also provided for parents to give them an 

overview of library resources, demonstrate how to obtain Internet access, and provide suggestions to 

them for reading to their children. 

Materials targeted to a particular content area 

Strengthening reading literacy through the science curriculum was an objective of a high school 

LSL grant program in a mid-size city in the south central part of the United States. In addition to new 

science materials, the district purchased science fiction novels to support a project activity of having 

students read both a fiction and a nonfiction book on a particular topic and compare them. Also as part 

of the grant, the district purchased a magazine subscription service and database that contains full text 

magazine articles, including medical articles. Before the grant, the science teachers were unaware of 

these resources and were pleased to be able to access current information. 

Software programs 

A Northeastern cooperative* with six rural districts participating in the LSL program purchased 

a variety of software programs under the grant. They included interactive books that can read words 

from the pages to the reader when the word is touched with a stylus. Drawings in the background are 

also interactive when touched with the stylus. 

*A cooperative is a voluntary association of school districts who work together across a geographic area to provide 

educational services more economically than any district could offer by itself. 
30 

 Technology and Internal and External Linkages 

The kinds of services school libraries can provide are affected by the types of technological 

equipment available to them. There were no significant differences between grantees and nongrantees in 

the availability of various kinds of equipment. More than 90 percent of the school libraries had an 

automated circulation system. About 80 percent had video laser disk or DVDs, a significant increase from 

about 60 percent for both grantees and nongrantees found in the first evaluation. 

Example of Technological Equipment Purchased With Grant Money, Drawn From the Case 

Studies 

A cooperative in a rural area of the Northeast purchased a sizable amount of technological 

equipment under the LSL grant. All six participating elementary schools, which were up to 100 miles 

apart, received the same equipment, including video-conferencing equipment. This equipment has 

enabled the students to conduct virtual field trips and do book studies together, although they are 

located far apart. Before the LSL grant, the cooperative had done a broadband project, so a connection 

was already in place. 

The percentages of grantees and 

nongrantees that do not have automated 

catalog, electronic full-text periodicals, 

and CD-ROMs were about the same and 

changed little from the first evaluation 

(Exhibit 4-8 and A-18). For both 

grantees and nongrantees, fewer than 

10 percent of school libraries do not 

have e-mail access and Internet access. 

Exhibit 4-8 

Percentage of School Libraries in Which Various 

Electronic Services Were Not Available, 

by Grantee Status, Fall 2006 

10

23

33

0

3

7

20

34

3*

8*

0 20 40 60 80 100

Internet access

E-mail

Automated

catalog

CD-ROMs

Electronic fulltext periodicals

Percentage

Grantee

Nongrantee

Exhibit reads: Electronic full-text periodicals were not available in 34 

percent of grantee school libraries, compared with 33 percent of 

nongrantee school libraries. This difference is not statistically significant. 

Note: The asterisks (*) indicate that there is a statistically significant 

difference (i.e., p-value ≤ .05) between grantee and nongrantee school 

libraries. 

Source: Second evaluation, school library media center survey question 

27.
31 

Significantly more grantees than 

nongrantees provided Internet access, email and automated catalog services 

through a network outside of the library 

by means of a buildingwide LAN or a 

district WAN (Exhibits 4-9, 4-10, A-18 

and A-19). The provision of automated 

catalog services and CD-ROMs through 

networks involving locations outside the 

library had significantly increased for 

grantees, but not for nongrantees since 

the first evaluation. More than 

80 percent of grantees and nongrantees 

provide Internet access and e-mail 

through outside networks. 

Exhibit 4-10 

Most Frequent Approach Used by Grantee and Nongrantee 

Schools to Provide Various Electronic Services, by Type of Service, Fall 2006 

Percentage of Schools 

Electronic Service Using the Approach Most Frequent Approacha

Used to Provide the Service 

Grantee Nongrantee 

 

E-mail............................................................................. District WAN 83* 76 

Internet access ................................................................ District WAN 81* 73 

Electronic full-text periodicals ....................................... District WAN 49 50 

CD-ROMs...................................................................... Stand-alone computer 43* 35 

Automated catalogs ........................................................ District WAN 46 40 

Exhibit reads: District WAN was used by 83 percent of grantees, compared with 76 percent of nongrantees. This difference is 

statistically significant (p ≤ .05).

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

nongrantee school libraries. WAN = wide area network. 

a

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

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

Exhibit 4-9 

Percent of School Libraries Reporting That Various 

Electronic Services Were Networked to Locations 

Outside of the Library, by Grantee Status, Fall 2006 

34

57

62

84

87

35

57

69*

91*

93*

0 20 40 60 80 100

CD-ROMs

Electronic fulltext periodicals

Automated

catalog

E-mail

Internet access

Percentage

Grantee

Nongrantee

Exhibit reads: For 93 percent of grantees, Internet access was networked 

to locations outside of the library, compared with 87 percent of 

nongrantees. This difference is statistically significant (p ≤ .05). 

Note: The asterisks (*) indicate that there is a statistically significant 

difference (i.e., p-value ≤ .05) between grantee and nongrantee school 

libraries. 

Source: Second evaluation, school library media center survey question 

27.
32 

One way in which school libraries 

can be linked to other resources is by 

computer access to the catalogs of other 

libraries. In fall 2006, after the grant had 

been implemented, significantly more 

grantee than nongrantee school libraries 

had computer access to the catalogs of all 

other types of libraries (Exhibits 4-11 and 

A-20). The percentage of grantees with 

computer access to the public library 

showed a significant decrease from the 

first evaluation (from 73 percent to 

64 percent). 

School libraries are also linked to 

public libraries through the conducting of 

cooperative activities. In fall 2006, 

59 percent of the grantee school libraries 

had participated in some cooperative 

activity with the local public library 

(Exhibit A-21), but that was a significant 

decrease from the first evaluation in 

which 68 percent of the grantees were 

engaged in these activities. However, as 

in the first evaluation, grantees were 

more significantly likely than nongrantee 

to participate (59 percent versus 

51 percent). 

Exhibit 4-11 

Percentage of School Libraries With Computer Access 

to the Catalogs of Other Libraries, by Grantee Status, 

Fall 2006 

24

38

42

47

58

33*

47*

53*

61*

64*

0 20 40 60 80 100

School libraries

outside district

Community

college library

College or

university library

Other school

libraries in district

Public library

Percentage

Grantee

Nongrantee

Exhibit reads: Sixty-four percent of grantees have computer access to the 

catalog of a public library, compared with 58 percent of nongrantees. This 

difference is statistically significant (p ≤ .05). 

Note: The asterisks (*) indicate that there is a statistically significant 

difference (i.e., p-value ≤ .05) between grantee and nongrantee school 

libraries. 

Source: Second evaluation, school library media center survey question 

28.
33 

Example of Linkages Established, Drawn From the Case Studies 

Twelve Internet-connected desktop computers for use by students and teachers were installed as 

part of the LSL grant in a small Eastern town. Additional computers have been purchased since 

completion of the grant. Each library now has about 25 Internet-connected units, so an entire class can 

work on them at the same time. Also under the grant, the middle-school card catalogs were put online 

and links were established to the local public library and the state university library. 

The percentages of grantee and nongrantee school libraries engaging in various types of 

cooperative activities were about the same, and they were generally the same as the first evaluation 

(Exhibits 4-12 and A-21). The exceptions were the significant decline (from 56 to 47 percent) in 

the percentage of grantees informing the public library of curriculum or upcoming homework needs and 

the decline (from 53 to 39 percent) in the percentage of grantees working with the public library to plan a 

summer reading program. 

Exhibit 4-12 

Percentage of School Libraries That Participated in Various Cooperative Activities With 

Local Public Libraries, by Grantee Status, Fall 2006 and 2004 

Fall 2006 

41

36

46

43

70

68

39

43

47

48

71

72

0 20 40 60 80 100

Summer reading program

Automation projects such as online

resources

Informing public library of

curriculum or upcoming homework

Coordinating on student resource

projects

Borrowing materials for school

library

Borrowing materials for classroom

teachers

Percentage

Grantee

Nongrantee

Borrowing materials for

classroom teachers

Coordinating on student

resource projects

Automation projects such as 

online resources

Fall 2004 

46

35

52

51

60

69

53

37

56

49

67

73

0 20 40 60 80 100

Summer reading program

Automation projects such as online

resources

Informing public library of

curriculum or upcoming homework

Coordinating on student resource

projects

Borrowing materials for school

library

Borrowing materials for classroom

teachers

Percentage

Grantee

Nongrantee

Borrowing materials for

classroom teachers

Coordinating on student

resource projects

Automation projects such as 

online resources

Exhibit reads: Seventy-two percent of grantee school libraries borrowed materials for classroom teachers from the local public 

library compared with 68 percent of nongrantee school libraries. This difference is not statistically significant. 

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

survey questions 30 and 31
34 

Involvement of Students 

One of the primary emphases of 

the LSL grants is to increase the number 

of hours in which school libraries are 

open, with the intention of increasing 

access to the libraries. Before receiving 

the grants, the LSL grantees on average 

were open for fewer hours during a 

typical full week than nongrantees (31.5 

versus 34.0), but this difference was 

largely eliminated after receiving the 

grants (34.3 versus 34.8) (Exhibits 4-13 

and A-22). After receiving the grant, 

grantees offered significantly more days 

of summer access (7.7 versus 6.4) 

compared with nongrantees, a reversal 

from the relationship before receiving 

LSL funding (2.9 versus 6.8) (Exhibit 4-

14). Among the grantees, the mean 

number of hours was lower if the schools 

spent $12 or less per student on libraries 

and if the libraries had 1.25 FTE staff 

members or fewer, both before and after 

receiving the grants. Findings from the 

first evaluation were similar to these 

results. 

Exhibit 4-13 

Number of Hours That School Libraries Were Open 

During a Typical Full Week, by Grantee Status, 

2006 and 2005 

34.8

31.5

34.3

34.0*

0 10 20 30 40

2005

2006

Number of hours

Grantee

Nongrantee

Exhibit reads: In 2005, grantee school libraries were open for an average 

of 31.5 hours during a typical full week, compared with 34.0 hours for 

nongrantee school libraries. This difference is statistically significant 

(p ≤ .05). 

Note: The asterisks (*) indicates that there is a statistically significant 

difference (i.e., p-value ≤ .05) between grantee and nongrantee school 

libraries. 

Source: Second evaluation, school library media center survey question 4.
35 

Exhibit 4-14 

Number of Days That School Libraries Were Open 

During the Summer, by Grantee Status, 2006 and 2005 

6.4

2.9

6.8*

7.7*

0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0

2005

2006

Number of days

Grantee

Nongrantee

Exhibit reads: In 2006, grantee school libraries were open for an average 

of 7.7 days, compared with 6.4 days for nongrantee school libraries. This 

difference is statistically significant (p ≤ .05). 

Note: The asterisks (*) indicate that there is a statistically significant 

difference (i.e., p-value ≤ .05) between grantee and nongrantee school 

libraries. 

Source: Second evaluation, school library media center survey question 8.
36 

A different way of looking at library 

availability is whether the school libraries 

were open during nonschool hours during 

the school year. Here the grantees and 

nongrantees showed very different patterns 

(Exhibits 4-15 and A-23). The nongrantees 

started in spring 2005 with 54 percent of 

schools offering access, but showed an 

insignificant change the next year at 

56 percent. The grantees started with lower 

levels of access in 2005 (39 percent), but 

their increase in 2006 was sufficiently 

large to give them higher levels of access 

than the nongrantees (72 percent versus 

56 percent).8

 

 

8

 Among the grantees, 35 percent offered access for the first time during nonschool hours in 2006, but 2 percent stopped offering access that they 

offered in 2005. Thus, the net change was 33 percent. 

Exhibit 4-15 

Percentage of Libraries Open During Nonschool Hours, 

by Grantee Status, Spring 2006 and 2005 

54

54

37

37

2

35

0

2

0 20 40 60 80

2005

2006

2005

2006

Nongrantees Grantees

Percentage

Both years

Indicated year only

72 (Total)

39 (Total)

56 (Total)

54 (Total)

Exhibit reads: In 2006, 37 percent of the grantees that were open during 

nonschool hours in the previous year continued to be open and an 

additional 35 percent began offering this service. A total of 72 percent of 

grantees were open during nonschool hours in 2006. In 2005, 37 percent 

of the grantees provided access during nonschool hours and continued to 

be open in 2006. An additional 2 percent provided access in 2005 but not 

in 2006. Altogether, 39 percent of the grantees provided access during 

2005. 

Source: Second evaluation, school library media center survey question 5.
37 

Exhibit 4-16 

Mean Number of Nonschool Hours of Library Access 

per Week, by Grantee Status, Spring 2006 and 2005 

3.6

6.9

6.8

6.7*

0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0

Nongrantees

Grantees

Number of hours

2006

2005

Exhibit reads: In 2005, grantee school libraries provided an average of 3.6 

nonschool hours of access, compared with 6.7 hours for nongrantees. This 

difference is statistically significant (p ≤ .05). 

Note: The asterisks (*) indicates that there is a statistically significant 

difference (i.e., p-value ≤ .05) between grantee and nongrantee school 

libraries. 

Source: Second evaluation, school library media center survey question 6.

Before receiving the LSL grants, 

the grantees provided significantly 

fewer nonschool hours of access per 

week than nongrantees (3.6 versus 6.7), 

but this difference was eliminated after 

receiving the grants (6.8 versus 6.9) 

(Exhibit 4-16). On average, grantees 

increased the mean number of 

nonschool hours of access from 3.6 to 

6.8 (a 91 percent increase), while 

nongrantees showed negligible change 

from 6.7 to 6.9. 
38 

Both in 2005 and 2006, the 

primary times of offering nonschool 

hours of access were after school and 

before school (Exhibit 4-17). Grantees 

started with fewer hours of access in 

2005 (1.4 hours per week before school 

and 2.1 after school for grantees 

compared with 2.5 and 4.1 hours for 

nongrantees), but were relatively 

similar to nongrantees in 2006 (1.9 

hours per week before school and 4.3 

hours after school for grantees 

compared with 2.4 and 4.4 hours for 

nongrantees). 

When schools opened libraries 

for extended hours, close to all 

(90 percent) were open for loaning 

books, 33 percent were open for 

specific programs such as offering 

tutorials on search techniques, 

13 percent held book clubs, and 

59 percent used the library for other 

purposes (Exhibit A-24). Grantees were 

somewhat more likely than nongrantees 

to offer specific programs such as 

tutorials (43 percent versus 32 percent). 

Example of Extended Hours, Drawn From the Case Studies 

As part of the LSL grant, each school library in a rural district in the East was open 

approximately 2.5 hours per week for extended hours either before or after school. During these 

extended hours, some students conducted research using the resources available to help them to 

complete classroom assignments or meet their own interests. Others received additional instruction on 

an early reading workstation. Also, many parents were recruited to be reading volunteers, who either 

read to the students or had the students read to them. However, extended hours benefit students who are 

driven to school more than those who rely on the bus. 

Once a month, each library was open for four hours in the evening for family reading night, an 

activity done two or three times a semester since completion of the grant. For approximately 20 hours in 

the summer, the libraries were open for Camp Read-a-Lot with planned activities targeting lowachieving and emergent readers. 

Exhibit 4-17 

Mean Number of Nonschool Hours of Access per Week 

to School Libraries, by Time of Access and 

Grantee Status, Spring 2005 and 2006 

1.4 1.9 2.5 2.4

2.1

4.3

4.1 4.4

0.1

0.6 0.2 0.2

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

2005 2006 2005 2006

Grantees Nongrantees

Number of hours

Before school After school Saturday

Grantees Nongrantees

Exhibit reads: In 2005, grantee school libraries provided an average of 1.4 

hours of access before school, 2.1 hours after school and 0.1 hours on 

Saturday. 

Source: Second evaluation, school library media center survey question 6.
39 

School libraries often faced 

barriers in extending their hours, with 

between 51 and 73 percent identifying 

each of four factors as either major or 

moderate barriers: availability of parents 

(73 percent of nongrantees and 

67 percent of grantees), availability of 

library staff (67 percent for both 

nongrantees and grantees), transportation 

for students (71 percent of nongrantees 

and 62 percent of grantees), and 

transportation for parents (57 percent of 

nongrantees and 51 percent of grantees) 

(Exhibits 4-18, A-25 and A-26). Safety 

concerns were less frequently noted as 

major or moderate barriers, but still were 

barriers for roughly a fourth of the 

schools (24 percent of nongrantees and 

27 percent of grantees). As a rule, the 

differences between grantees and 

nongrantees were small, as were the 

differences between different subgroups 

of grantees. However, the availability of 

library staff at grantee schools was less 

likely to be a major barrier at high 

schools than at elementary or middle schools (30 percent versus 44 percent–45 percent) and at large 

schools than at small schools (33 percent versus 46 percent). 

Exhibit 4-18 

Percentage of School Libraries Saying That Various 

Factors Were Either Major or Moderate Barriers to 

Extending Library Hours, by Grantee Status, Fall 2006 

30 38 42 50

39 47

20 26

10 10

37

35 25 17

23

24

31

30

17 14

0

20

40

60

80

100

Grantees

Nongrantees

Grantees

Nongrantees

Grantees

Nongrantees

Grantees

Nongrantees

Grantees

Nongrantees

Availability 

of parents

Availability 

of library staff

Transportation

for students

Transportation

for parents

Safety 

concerns

Percentage

Moderate barrier

Major barrier

Exhibit reads: Thirty percent of grantees considered the availability of 

parents to be a major barrier to extending library hours and 37 percent 

considered it to be a moderate barrier. 

Source: Second evaluation, school library media center survey question 

16.
40 

To the extent that libraries increased the hours they were open, one might expect that student usage 

of the libraries would increase—for example, in the number of students using the libraries in a typical 

week or in the number of materials that were checked out. As in the first evaluation, grantees showed an 

increase in number of visits per week but no significant change in the number of materials checked out 

(Exhibits 4-19 and A-27). No data were collected on why the number of materials checked out did not 

change, but possible reasons are (a) that students were using other books or using books in the library and 

not checking them out or (b) that there was a limit on the number of books students could check out at 

one time. Nongrantees showed no change in number of visits per week. As a rule, the changes were small, 

so differences between different categories of grantees were statistically insignificant. However, a few 

categories showed increases of 25 percent or more in number of visits to the library in a typical week: 

schools located in cities (25 percent), schools where 50 percent or more of the students were eligible for 

free or reduced-price lunch (25 percent), schools with library expenditures per student of $12 or less 

(33 percent), and schools with 1.25 or fewer FTE staff members in the library (27 percent). 

Exhibit 4-19 

Mean Usage of Library Resources per Student, 

by Grantee Status, Spring 2006 and 2005 

1.2

1.2

1.2

1.4*

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5

Nongrantees

Grantees

2006

2005

Mean number of visits in 

a typical full week

2.0

2.0

1.9

2.2

1.7 1.8 1.9 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3

Nongrantees

Grantees

2006

2005

Mean number of 

materials checked out

Exhibit reads: In a typical full week in 2006, students used grantee school libraries an average of 1.4 times, compared with 1.2 

times for nongrantees. This difference is statistically significant (p ≤ .05). 

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

nongrantee school libraries. 

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

Services Offered 

One of the most common tasks for school libraries, whether grantees or nongrantees, was to 

provide reference assistance: 76 percent to 78 percent reported providing such assistance to students on a 

daily basis, and 53 percent to 57 percent reported providing it to teachers on a daily basis (Exhibits 4-20, 

A-28 and A-29). Providing reference assistance to administrators was less common, but still 69 percent to 

70 percent reported providing it monthly or more often. Grantees and nongrantees differed in three areas. 

First, grantees were more likely to work on a monthly basis with the principal or teachers on curriculum 

issues (42 percent versus 29 percent), the only area where grantees more frequently offered a service than 

nongrantees in the first evaluation study. Second, grantees were more likely to participate in grade-level, 

department or team meetings (52 percent versus 41 percent). This difference is new (grantees and 

nongrantees were tied at 49 percent in the last study), but the change is attributed to a decline in providing 

services among nongrantees rather than to new behavior among the grantees. Still, being a grantee was 

associated with providing a higher level of service. Third, grantees were more likely than nongrantees to 
41 

coordinate training programs about integrating educational technology into the curriculum for teachers 

and other staff members (13 percent versus 7 percent). Grantees were less likely to provide frequent 

services at small schools than at large schools (e.g., 73 percent versus 89 percent for reference assistance 

to students, 49 percent versus 69 percent on providing reference assistance to teachers, and 30 percent 

versus 53 percent on assisting with research projects). 

Exhibit 4-20 

Percentage of School Libraries Offering Selected Services on a Daily or Monthly Basis, 

by Grantee Status, 2005–06 School Year 

7

12

41

29

37

24

18

57

78

10

35

26

22

53

76

13*

52*

42*

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Coordinate training on technology 

Hold team meetings 

Assist teachers with 

research projects for students 

Help with sources outside the school 

Teachers 

Provide reference assistance to:

Percentage

Grantees

Nongrantees

Monthly services

Daily services

Students

Administrators

Work on curriculum issues

Coordinate textbook selection

Assist teachers with research

projects for students

Exhibit reads: Seventy-six percent of grantees provided reference assistance to students on a daily basis, compared with 

78 percent of nongrantees. This difference is not statistically significant. 

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

nongrantee school libraries. 

Source: Second evaluation, school library media center survey question 10.
42 

Overall, grantees were more likely 

to have increased services (i.e., by 

establishing new programs or expanding 

existing programs) than nongrantees 

(Exhibits 4-21, A-30, A-31 and A-32). 

For example, they were more likely to 

have increased services to assist with 

research projects (42 percent versus 

24 percent), work on curriculum issues 

(40 percent versus 23 percent), and 

participate in team meetings (36 percent 

versus 23 percent). The same was true of 

services specifically related to 

reading/English (Exhibit 4-22). For 

example, grantees were more likely to 

have increased services concerning 

selecting resources (49 percent versus 

33 percent), curriculum development 

(32 percent versus 20 percent), family 

literacy nights (38 percent versus 

13 percent), and after-school programs 

with library orientation (34 percent 

versus 8 percent). In the first evaluation, 

grantees were also more likely than 

nongrantees to have increased services. 

Exhibit 4-21 

Percentage of School Libraries Providing New or 

Expanded General Programs or Services in 2005–06, 

by Grantee Status 

4

36

22

8

23

23

24

9*

52*

42*

14*

36*

40*

42*

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Provide junior scholars 

after-school programs

Coordinate training on technology

Participate in team meetings

Assist with research projects

Percentage

Grantees

Nongrantees

Work on curriculum issues

Coordinate textbook selection

Provide instruction on

information skills

Exhibit reads: Forty-two percent of grantees provided new or expanded 

assistance with research projects in the 2005–06 school year, compared 

with 24 percent of nongrantees. This difference is statistically significant 

(p ≤ .05). 

Note: The asterisks (*) indicate that there is a statistically significant 

difference (i.e., p-value ≤ .05) between grantee and nongrantee school 

libraries. 

Source: Second evaluation, school library media center survey question 

15.
43 

Exhibit 4-22 

Percentage of School Libraries Providing New or 

Expanded Programs Relating to Reading or English 

in 2005–06, by Grantee Status 

12

8

13

12

18

20

33

18*

34*

38*

20*

30*

32*

49*

0 20 40 60 80 100

Percentage

Grantees

Nongrantees

Assistance to classroom teachers with:

Developing curriculum

Evaluating reading/English

After-school program with

library orientation

Selecting resources

Teaching reading/English

Family literacy nights

Book clubs

Exhibit reads: Forty-nine percent of grantees provided new or expanded 

services in selecting reading or English resources with classroom 

teachers in the 2005–06 school year, compared with 33 percent of 

nongrantees. This difference is statistically significant 

(p ≤ .05). 

Note: The asterisks (*) indicate that there is a statistically significant 

difference (i.e., p-value ≤ .05) between grantee and nongrantee school 

libraries. 

Source: Second evaluation, school library media center survey question 

15.

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

Information problem solving 

Librarians and classroom teachers have jointly implemented an information problem-solving model 

as a part of one LSL grant in a small Eastern town. In one activity, an eighth grade science teacher asked 

the class to write a question they 

wanted to answer. Then they went to the library to find the answer, using a minimum of three sources 

including at least one Internet source. The librarian and classroom teacher helped students who were 

having difficulty. Students would later write a summary of what they had learned. 

Early reading 

In one rural district in the East with 15 participating elementary schools, an early reading workstation 

was purchased for each school to address the identified need for materials for nonreaders. About 10 

students in each school were targeted for 15–20 minutes of individualized instruction per day. Students 

who were nonreaders but were not considered to be special education students were selected. Initially, the 

students worked with tutors, but some became self-directed and worked on their own. According to the 

district, 90 percent of the students in this program had attained grade-level reading. For some students, 

this achievement represented an increase of two grade levels. Consequently, the district plans to add more 

workstations. 
44 

Examples of Services Provided Under the LSL Grant, Drawn From the Case Studies (continued) 

Young Authors Program 

The LSL grant provided a librarian in a small rural district in the north central part of the United 

States with the resources to establish a Young Authors Program in which students wrote and illustrated 

their own books. Older students used PowerPoint to prepare their books. This program was said to 

foster interest in reading as well as writing skills and creativity. 

Reader’s Theatre 

In a small Southern town, 40 high school students performed Reader’s Theaters for 

approximately 240 primary school students. The materials for this activity were multiple copies of 

plays written on the second grade level. Each high school student read a part in the play, and one or two 

students served as narrators. The younger students could read the play on their own at a later date. The 

plays were selected by the primary school’s media specialist and purchased with LSL funds. 

Staffing of School Libraries 

Nongrantee school libraries had a 

mean of 1.2 full-time staff members and 

0.5 paid part-time staff members in both 

spring 2005 and 2006 (Exhibits 4-23 and 

A-33). Grantees had significantly fewer 

full-time staff members than nongrantees 

(1.0 versus 1.2 in both years) and no 

statistically significant difference in the 

number of part-time staff members in 

spring 2005 and 2006. Thus, despite the 

focus on extending the number of hours 

that school libraries were open, the LSL 

grants do not appear to have been used 

to increase paid staffing.9

 One reason 

might be that districts are reluctant to 

hire new staff members for just the one 

year of the grant. 

 

9

 The LSL legislation also contains a “supplement, not supplant” restriction, which means (a) that the LSL funding cannot be used to pay for staff 

members to do activities that were done before the grant was awarded and (b) that LSL funding cannot be used to pay for staff if there is 

existing funding for staff. 

Exhibit 4-23 

Mean Number of School Library Staff, 

by Grantee Status, Spring 2006 and 2005 

0.5

0.6

1.0

0.5

0.7

1.0

1.2*

1.2*

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4

Nongrantees

Grantees

Part-time staff

Nongrantees

Grantees

Full-time staff

Mean number of staff

2006

2005

Full-time staff

Part-time staff

Exhibit reads: In 2006, grantees had an average of 1.0 full-time staff, 

compared with 1.2 full-time staff for nongrantees. This difference is 

statistically significant (p ≤ .05). 

Note: The asterisks (*) indicate that there is a statistically significant 

difference (i.e., p-value ≤ .05) between grantee and nongrantee school 

libraries. 

Source: Second evaluation, school library media center survey question 9.
45 

There was a small but statistically 

significant decrease among grantees in 

the number of pupils per librarian (from 

391.4 to 371.5) (Exhibits 4-24 and A-33). 

Grantees in rural districts had fewer 

pupils per librarian than those in cities in 

2005 (293.4 versus 478.2), and also 

showed a decline in that ratio in 2006 (to 

247.6), while cities showed essentially no 

change (with means of 478.2 in 2005 and 

474.1 in 2006). Also, grantees at small 

schools had fewer pupils per librarian 

than those in large schools in 2005 (261.4 

versus 728.8), and further showed a small 

decline in 2006 (i.e., from 261.4 to 

239.9), while large schools showed little 

change (from 728.8 to 717.6, which was 

not statistically significant). 

Professional Development Related to 

School Libraries 

The LSL legislation states that 

program funds may be used to “provide 

professional development ... for school 

library media specialists and activities 

that foster increased collaboration between school library media specialists, teachers, and 

administrators.”10 Professional development funded by LSL is limited to staff members serving prekindergarten through grade 3. Because professional development is specifically mentioned in the LSL 

legislation, one might expect that more grantee staff members would participate in professional 

development related to school libraries compared with nongrantee staff members. 

 

10 Section 1251(g)(4) of the ESEA.

Exhibit 4-24 

Mean Number of Pupils per Librarian, 

by Grantee Status, Spring 2006 and 2005 

391.4

371.5

450.8*

448.7*

0 100 200 300 400 500

Nongrantees

Grantees

Pupils per librarian

2006

2005

Exhibit reads: In 2006, grantees had an average of 371.5 pupils per 

librarian, compared with 448.7 pupils per librarian for nongrantees. This 

difference is statistically significant (p ≤ .05). 

Note: The asterisks (*) indicate that there is a statistically significant 

difference (i.e., p-value ≤ .05) between grantee and nongrantee school 

libraries. 

Source: Second evaluation, school library media center survey questions 

1 and 9.
46 

About three-fourths of both grantees and nongrantees reported staff members participating in 

professional development related to school libraries during the grant year, but the mean number of staff 

members participating was greater for the grantees. About twice as many classroom teachers, 

paraprofessionals and reading specialists in grantee schools received professional development related to 

school libraries compared with nongrantee staff members (Exhibit 4-25). When compared with the first 

LSL evaluation, the mean number of both grantee and nongrantee staff members receiving professional 

development decreased in 2005–06, especially for classroom teachers (from 14.1 to 9.5 for grantees and 

from 11.1 to 4.7 for nongrantees). 

Exhibit 4-25 

Mean Number of Staff Members Participating in Professional Development, by Grantee Status 

Year, 2005–06 and 2003–04 School Years 

Grantees 

0.5

1.5

0.9

1.1

0.8

0.6

1.8

9.5

0.6

0.9

0.4

14.1

0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0 16.0

Other

Paraprofessionals

Classroom

teachers

Reading

specialists

Library media

specialists

Principals

Mean number of staff members participating 

in professional development

2005–06

2003–04

Nongrantees 

0.5

1.5

0.8

1.0

0.7

0.1

1.0

4.7

0.3

1.0

0.3

11.1

0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0 16.0

Other

Paraprofessionals

Classroom

teachers

Reading

specialists

Library media

specialists

Principals

Mean number of staff members participating

in professional development

2005–06

2003–04

Exhibit reads: In the 2005–06 school year, an average of 0.4 principals in grantee schools participated in professional 

development. In the 2003–04 school year, an average of 0.8 principals in grantee schools participated. 

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

question 17.
47 

Although LSL professional development is directed at the elementary level, the mean number of 

staff members participating in professional development related to school libraries at the elementary level 

was about the same as the mean number for all schools. One exception was the mean number of 

classroom teachers participating in professional development, which was significantly lower for 

elementary schools than for all schools (8.3 versus 9.5). One possible reason for the high participation by 

staff members at all grade levels is that some of the professional development may have been funded by 

sources other than LSL; the survey did not ask about funding sources. 

During the grant year, the topics 

covered in the professional development 

of grantees and nongrantees were 

generally the same, although 

professional development related to 

teaching children to read was provided 

by more grantees (60 percent) than 

nongrantees (47 percent) (Exhibits 4-26 

and A-34). However, a different picture 

emerges when one examines 

professional development provided 

during the year before the grant. The 

grantees covered all the topics 

significantly less frequently in the year 

before the grant than they did during the 

grant year (Exhibits 4-27 and A-35). In 

contrast, nongrantees covered the 

various topics to the same extent that 

they did during the grant year. There 

were some differences among subgroups 

of grantees. Those in cities were less 

likely than grantees in the urban fringe 

to offer professional development in 

integrating technology into the 

curriculum (79 percent compared with 

96 percent). 

Exhibit 4-26 

Percentage of School Libraries Covering Selected Topics 

in Professional Development Activities, 

by Grantee Status, 2005–06 School Year 

42

47

71

81

76

89

88

87

45

72

77

87

88

89

60*

83*

0 20 40 60 80 100

Converting to electronic catalog

Select books aligning with

curriculum

Methods of collaboration

Motivating students to read

Percentage

Grantees

Nongrantees

Learning to use online resources

Integrating technology into

curriculum

Providing instruction in 

information skills

Teaching children to read

Exhibit reads: Eighty-nine percent of grantee school libraries covered the 

topic of learning to use online resources in professional development 

activities, compared with 87 percent of nongrantee school libraries. This 

difference is not statistically significant. 

Note: The asterisks (*) indicate that there is a statistically significant 

difference (i.e., p-value ≤ .05) between grantee and nongrantee school 

libraries. 

Source: Second evaluation, school library media center survey question 

19. 
48 

Exhibit 4-27 

Percentage of School Libraries Covering Selected Topics in Professional Development Activities, by 

Grantee Status, 2005–06 and 2004–05 School Years 

Grantees 

31

42

61

56

65

70

66

45

60

72

77

83

87

88

89

45

0 20 40 60 80 100

Converting to electronic catalog

Selecting books that align with

curriculum

Methods of collaboration

Motiving students to read

Percentage

Grant year (2005–06)

Year before grant

Learning to use online resources

Integrating technology into curriculum

Providing instruction in 

information skills 

Teaching children to read

Nongrantees 

40

45

77

74

84

82

83

42

47

71

81

76

89

88

87

68

0 20 40 60 80 100

Converting to electronic catalog

Selecting books that align with

curriculum

Methods of collaboration

Motiving students to read

Percentage

Grant year (2005–06)

Year before grant

Learning to use online resources

Integrating technology into curriculum

Providing instruction in 

information skills 

Teaching children to read

Exhibit reads: In the 2005–06 school year, the grant year, 89 percent of grantee school libraries covered the topic of learning to 

use online resources in professional development activities. In the 2004–05 school year, the year before the grant, 66 percent of 

grantee school libraries covered this topic. 

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

Examples of Professional Development, Drawn From the Case Studies 

Special day to demonstrate new equipment 

A rural cooperative in the Northeast purchased a sizable amount of technological equipment. 

Each library media specialist in the participating districts held a professional development day to 

demonstrate the equipment to classroom teachers. 

Professional development team 

In a mid-size city in the south central part of the United States, each school established a 

professional development team during the first month of the LSL project. The team worked with other 

committees to identify training needs, particularly because the libraries had acquired additional updated 

materials and resources. For example, both classroom teachers and librarians were trained on software 

and database usage. At the elementary level, the professional development teams included one teacher 

from each grade level, the librarian, library aide, and one special education teacher. At the high-school 

level, one representative from each content area also was included on the teams. School principals 

participated as honorary members. 
49 

Collaboration With Teachers 

Collaboration between school 

librarians and teachers is encouraged by 

the LSL program. Literacy is a focus of 

the program and reading/language arts is 

the curriculum area in which 

collaboration occurred most often on a 

weekly basis (Exhibits 4-28, A-36, and 

A-37). However, there was no significant 

difference between grantees and 

nongrantees in the amount of 

collaboration in reading/language arts or 

other subject areas except science. Both 

grantees and nongrantees had 

significantly more collaboration for 

reading/language arts than for other 

curriculum areas. For all subject areas, 

grantees with school enrollments of more 

than 700 students had more collaboration 

than smaller grantee schools. 

Exhibit 4-28 

Percentage of School Libraries With Library Staff 

Working With Classroom Teachers on a Weekly Basis,

by Grantee Status, 2005–06 School Year 

25

17

11

36

61

29

11

37

60

23*

0 20 40 60 80 100

Social studies

Mathematics

Reading/language

arts

Percentage

Grantees

Nongrantees

English

Science

Exhibit reads: Working with classroom teachers on reading/ language arts 

on a weekly basis was done by staff in 60 percent of grantee school 

libraries, compared with 61 percent of nongrantee school libraries. This 

difference is not statistically significant. 

Note: The asterisks (*) indicates that there is a statistically significant 

difference (i.e., p-value ≤ .05) between grantee and nongrantee school 

libraries. 

Source: Second evaluation, school library media center survey question 

11. 
50 

The curriculum areas in which 

collaboration between school library 

staff members and classroom teachers 

occurred most frequently were 

reading/language arts and English, areas 

of particular emphasis in the LSL 

program. Types of services school 

libraries might provide to classroom 

teaches in reading or English are 

selecting resources, curriculum 

development, collaborative teaching and 

collaborative evaluation. Only one of 

these services, collaborative teaching, 

was done significantly more frequently 

by grantees than nongrantees (Exhibits 

4-29, A-38, and A-39). All these 

services were provided more frequently 

by grantees at the middle school/junior 

high level than at the elementary level. 

Exhibit 4-29 

Percentage of School Libraries Providing Selected 

Services to Classroom Teachers in Reading or English,

by Grantee Status, 2005–06 School Year 

34

44

51

83

38

55

84

53*

0 20 40 60 80 100

Collaborative

evaluation

Collaborative

teaching

Curriculum

development

Selecting

resources

Percentage

Grantees

Nongrantees

Exhibit reads: Eighty-four percent of grantee school library staff worked 

with classroom teachers in selecting resources in reading or English, 

compared with 83 percent of nongrantee school libraries. This difference 

is not statistically significant. 

Note: The asterisks (*) indicates that there is a statistically significant 

difference (i.e., p-value ≤ .05) between grantee and nongrantee school 

libraries. 

Source: Second evaluation, school library media center survey question 

12. 
51 

Examples of Collaboration Between Librarians and Classroom Teachers, Drawn 

From the Case Studies 

Fostering collaboration through joint attendance at professional development programs 

In a rural cooperative in the north central region of the United States, a mechanism used for 

fostering collaboration was having the librarians and teachers attend professional development 

programs together to see where they could work together. Subsequently, librarians have co-taught 

research units and genre studies. 

Joint decision making with respect to purchases leads to further collaboration 

In a small rural district in the north central part of the United States, the librarian consulted with 

classroom teachers about which books and other materials to purchase. This process has increased the 

collaboration between teachers and librarians on a variety of activities, including lesson planning and 

teaching information and research skills. Finding time for collaboration was a challenge at first. The 

teachers did not want to miss instructional time and preferred not to use substitutes to cover their 

classes. Ultimately, staff members donated their personal and planning time. The collaboration 

established under the grant has been continued beyond the grant year and in some cases has 

strengthened with time. The initial goal was to have eight collaborative projects, but the district 

exceeded this goal by having 11. 

Information skills instruction, or information literacy, involves the development of concepts, skills 

and attitudes that foster independent, effective and lifelong use of information. This instruction can be 

provided as a separate course, integrated into the curriculum or provided as a combination of these two 

approaches. In 2005–06, more grantees than nongrantees used a combination of approaches (42 percent 

versus 34 percent) (Exhibits 4-30 and A-40). Grantees used this approach more frequently at the middleschool/junior-high and high-school levels than at the elementary level. In 2005–06, 47 percent of the 

grantees used integration into the curriculum as the only approach for teaching information skills, an 

increase from 2003–04 when 37 percent used this approach. 

Exhibit 4-30 

Approaches Used to Provide Instruction in Information Skills, by Grantee Status, 

2005–06 School Year 

5%

47%

42%*

Both separately

and integrated

into curriculum

Separate course

only

Integrated into

curriculum only

Neither

Grantees

6%

50%

7%

34%

Nongrantees

9%

Exhibit reads: Forty-two percent of grantees provided instruction in information skills both as a separate course and integrated 

into the curriculum, compared with 34 percent of nongrantees. This difference is statistically significant (p ≤ .05). 

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

nongrantee school libraries. 

Source: Second evaluation, school library media center survey question 13. 
52 

Similarly, the personnel involved in providing the instruction on information skills were the same 

for grantees and nongrantees in 2005–06 (Exhibit A-40). This representation was a change from 2003–04 

for the grantees when 87 percent of the library media specialists were involved in this instruction 

compared with 78 percent in 2005–06. 

Example of Introducing Collaborative Teaching and Flexible Scheduling, 

Drawn From the Case Studies 

In one small rural district in the north central part of the United States, an LSL program goal was 

to introduce flexible library scheduling and collaborative teaching. The school librarian began with two 

teachers to demonstrate how it works. The practice was successful in teaching specific units such as 

how to write a research paper, which was conducted with the eighth grade science teacher. 

Subsequently, two more teachers have requested the librarian to work collaboratively with them in their 

English classes. 

Libraries That Received Grants for Two or Three Years 

Of the 85 grantees in 2005–06, 11 had also received an LSL grant in at least one previous year.11

These repeat grantees might be expected to show different patterns from first-time LSL grantees; for 

example, they may have already overcome some of the prior disadvantaged status that seems often to 

have been associated with being an LSL grantee, plus they may set new priorities in later years. These 11 

grantees are represented by 37 school libraries among the 611 respondents to the survey, and it is helpful 

to see how these grantees compare with first-time LSL grantees. 

 

11 Grantee districts can apply again for funding to serve grade levels or schools not served by current or prior funding. All grantee districts still 

have to meet the eligibility requirements. 
53 

In the first evaluation, school libraries receiving two successive LSL grants tended to be more 

disadvantaged than those receiving grants only in 2003–04. In contrast, in the second evaluation, the 

repeat grantees appear to have started with fewer disadvantages in 2004–05 than the other grantees 

(Exhibit 4-31). For example, they were open for a slightly longer number of hours during a typical full 

week in 2005 (32.3 versus 31.4), were open for more days in the summer (4.3 versus 2.7), and provided a 

greater mean number of nonschool hours of access (7.0 versus 3.1). In addition, the repeat grantees had a 

greater mean number of materials checked out per student (3.0 versus 1.9), were more likely to provide 

access during nonschool hours (70 percent versus 36 percent), and spent more on books and subscriptions 

($7,668 versus $9,468). There were exceptions, however. The repeat grantees had a greater ratio of pupils 

per librarian than the other grantees (433.7 versus 386.4). 

Exhibit 4-31 

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

2005 2006 

Characteristic Received Grants for Received Grants for 

1 Year 2 Years 

Nongrantees 1 Year 2 Years 

Nongrantees 

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

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

Mean number of nonschool hours of 

access................................................. 3.1 7.0 6.7 6.7 7.4 6.9 

Mean number of materials checked out 

per student ......................................... 1.9 3.0 2.0 2.1 3.1 1.9 

Percentage provided access during 

nonschool hours ................................ 36% 70% 54% 72% 71% 56% 

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

Mean expenditures on books and 

subscriptions (dollars)........................ 7,667.5 9,467.6 7,315.2 26,179.6 24,367.0 8,085.0 

Exhibit reads: In 2005, the mean number of hours that libraries were open in a typical full week was 31.4 hours for those who had 

received an LSL grant for one year, 32.3 hours for those who had received LSL grants for two years (through two separate 

grants), and 34.0 hours for those who had never received an LSL grant. 

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

Because repeat grantees generally appeared to start with a relative advantage, one can examine 

what happened after both groups (grantees and repeat grantees) had received grants. The findings were 

mixed. The exhibit above shows that the two groups became more equal in terms of the number of 

nonschool hours of access (though the repeat grantees maintained a slight advantage), but the repeat 

grantees maintained their advantage in terms of the number of materials checked out, and the other 

grantees surpassed the repeat grantees on several measures (the mean number of hours they were open in 

a typical week, the mean number of days they were open during the summer, and the total expenditures 

on books and subscriptions). 

It is difficult to extrapolate from these findings, both because of their mixed nature and because the 

findings may depend on which particular districts received grants in a particular year. 
54 
55 

Chapter 5 

Achievement Analysis 

Key Findings 

• No definitive statement can be made based on these data as to whether LSL was associated with 

improved test scores. 

• One of the primary features of the LSL program—increasing the size of the book collections—was 

significantly related to increased test scores. On average, each additional book per student that 

libraries obtained was associated with an increase of 0.44 percentage points in student test scores. 

• Some differences appeared by instructional level, with LSL grantee status showing a stronger 

relationship to student test scores at the elementary school level and an increase in the number of 

books per student showing a stronger relationship at the secondary school level. 

• Most of the change in test scores appeared to take place in the year after receiving the grant (2004–

05) rather than in the year of the grant (2003–04). The estimated change in test scores was slightly 

higher in the subsample of schools that compared 2004–05 data with true baseline data from 2002–

03. However, the differences in the estimates of test score changes were not statistically significant 

across the models used. Because the sample of schools varies across models, it is not possible to 

know whether the small, nonstatistically significant differences are a result of the difference in 

samples or a result of the different years of data used for comparison purposes. 

To test whether the LSL program was associated with improved test scores, this analysis used 

regression models to predict student test scores in 2004–05 on state reading/English assessments based on 

their test scores in 2002–03 and/or 2003–04 and on each school’s LSL participation in the 2003–04 

school year. Only school-level data on student test scores were available, but a school-level analysis is 

appropriate because the LSL grants can be considered to affect the whole school. However, the lack of 

student-level data does limit the ability of this analysis to examine whether LSL affected some students 

differently than other students. 

Methodology 

A later section of this chapter presents the actual statistical findings. This section describes the data 

and the key methodological choices that were made in the statistical analysis. 

Student Test Scores

Student test score data were obtained from the National Longitudinal School-Level State 

Assessment Score Database (NLSLSASD). These data, available for almost all states for multiple years, 

consist of school-level state assessment results for the tested grades. Because the purpose of this study 

was to examine the association of LSL grants with student literacy, the reading test scores were used in 

the analysis. Some states also test students in writing; reading scores were chosen because they were more 

universally available and, thus, better able to support the statistical analysis. At higher grade levels, some 

states use a test in English/language arts rather than in reading; these scores were used in place of reading 

scores if no reading scores were available. 
56 

If test scores were available for multiple grade levels for a school, then the average proficiency 

level across all available grade levels was computed, adjusting for the number of students in each grade 

level.12 The most recent test score data available at the time of this report were for 2004–05 and, thus, 

were too old to use to examine the 2005–06 school year as in the rest of this report. Therefore, the test 

score data were merged with questionnaire data from the previous LSL evaluation data (examining the 

2003–04 school year). NLSLSASD is highly comprehensive, but it does not include all states or all 

schools within the states. Of the 701 respondents to the 2003–04 survey, test scores were available for 

553 schools (79 percent) in 24 states. 

Because the schools in this study were not randomly assigned and the study’s comparison group 

sample was not matched on previous achievement, preprogram data (2002–03) are important to control 

for possible preexisting differences in achievement or in factors related to achievement that could bias 

estimates of LSL-related changes in achievement. Thus, ideally the test score analysis would include data 

for at least three years for every school, and preferably more. There would be three benefits to having 

such data: (1) the statistical models could better estimate what trend in scores existed at each school 

before receiving the LSL grants; (2) if data for later years were included, the models could examine 

whether any increase in test scores persisted or changed in later years; and (3) the models could test the 

empirical question of whether the grants showed some association with improved test scores during the 

year of the grant or whether a longer time period was required before any change in test scores could be 

found. 

Unfortunately, data for only a limited number of years were available. At the time of the study, no 

data were available for the years after 2004–05, and data were unavailable for 2002–03, the baseline year, 

for 60 percent of the respondents. Because of the lack of complete baseline data, this analysis compares 

three different types of approaches. One approach analyzes only schools for which three years of data 

were available (i.e., 2002–03 through 2004–05). However, given the large amount of missing baseline 

data, this approach both reduces the size of the data set and provides a less representative set of schools. 

A second approach predicts the 2004–05 scores using data from the year after the grant (2003–04) instead 

of the baseline year (2002–03). Although this model allows more of the sample to be included in the 

analysis, it also assumes that there is no LSL-associated change in achievement during the year of the 

grant and that there are no preexisting differences between the LSL and non-LSL schools in the sample, 

both of which are untestable assumptions. A third approach is a hybrid approach, using the 2002–03 data 

where available, but using 2003–04 data for the remaining cases so all cases can be retained for the 

analysis. This analysis uses a dummy variable to differentiate between the two groups of data. Each of 

these three approaches has advantages and disadvantages, and the collective use of all three allows us to 

better understand the implications of each one. These three approaches are discussed in greater detail in a 

later section. 

Comparison Group 

The design of the comparison group of nongrantee schools for the 2004 survey is similar to the 

design for the current study. Collectively, the comparison schools represent all schools that were in 

districts eligible to receive LSL grants in 2003–04 (i.e., at least 20 percent of the students in the LEA 

must be from families with incomes below the poverty line) and that had not received LSL grants in the 

past. To the extent possible, comparison schools were chosen from the same states as the sampled grantee 

schools to keep the test scores as comparable as possible. This analysis is based on data from 24 states. 

 

12 For example, if both grades 3 and 4 were tested, the number taking the test in grade 3 was multiplied by the percentage who were proficient, 

and the number taking the test in grade 4 was multiplied by the percentage who were proficient. Then the total of those two numbers was 

divided by the total number in grades 3 and 4 to get a single percentage for all grades that were tested. 
57 

The grantees in the study were a subsample of 400 grantee schools from the approximately 650 

schools that received grants in 2003–04. Similarly, a sample of 400 comparison schools was selected by 

drawing an equal number of comparison schools from each of the specified matching cells, based on the 

sampling strata. The district-level characteristics that were used in the matching process included region, 

district poverty status, school district type, urbanicity and district enrollment size. The school-level 

characteristics that were used in the matching process included instructional level, school type, enrollment 

size, type of locale, percentage of students belonging to racial/ethnic minorities and the percentage 

receiving free lunches. Because baseline achievement data were not available at the time of sampling, we 

were unable to match comparison and LSL schools on prior achievement. Special attention was given to 

identifying similar comparison schools for those few grantee schools with unusual characteristics (charter 

school districts or single-school districts). Both grantees and nongrantees were weighted based on the 

probability of selection and to adjust for nonresponse. The grantees were weighted to represent the 

approximately 650 schools receiving grants. The nongrantees were weighted to represent the pool of 

eligible schools (i.e., schools in districts with high poverty) that did not receive LSL grants. Because 

nongrantees were weighted to represent a population with a potentially different distribution of 

characteristics than in the original sample, the weighted and unweighted statistics can show different 

distributions. We chose to weight the nongrantees to the total population of eligible schools that did not 

receive LSL grants for the following reasons: (a) for many types of statistics, there is a natural interest in 

comparing LSL schools with all eligible schools; (b) the characteristics of specific schools that get awards 

can change from year to year, while eligibility provides a straightforward way of identifying the schools 

of interest; and (c) though the weights of the comparison schools could be made proportional to the LSL 

weights, it would no longer be clear what class of schools was being discussed, while LSL eligibility 

clearly defines such a class. 

Exhibit 5-1 shows how the grantees and nongrantees compared on several school characteristics, 

both for the original set of survey respondents and for the reduced set of schools that were available for 

the test score analysis. The grantee and nongrantee survey respondents showed highly similar 

distributions when using unweighted statistics (generally within 1.5 percentage points for those 

characteristics that were used for matching) and somewhat less similar distributions when using weighted 

statistics (generally within 4 or 5 percentage points). A similar pattern appeared for the subset of schools 

with test scores: there were small differences in the unweighted distributions (generally within 2 

percentage points) and somewhat larger differences in the weighted distributions (generally within 4 or 5 

percentage points). The only statistically significant differences between grantees and nongrantees in 

Exhibit 5-1 were with respect to middle and secondary/combined schools. Because the analysis focuses 

on change over time and schools do not ordinarily change instructional levels, the differences based on 

school level should not have had an important effect on the results. Also, the end of this chapter includes 

a separate analysis by school level. 

Mean reading test scores at baseline were not available at the time the samples were drawn, and are 

still missing for 60 percent of the respondents, but can be used as an additional tool for examining how 

the two samples compared (Exhibit 5-2). The baseline test score means generally were within 2 

percentage points when comparing grantees and nongrantees; however, 60 percent of the sample is 

missing from this comparison. 
58 

Exhibit 5-1 

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

Percentage of Survey Respondents Percentage of Test Score Schools 

Unweighted Weighted Unweighted Weighted 

School Characteristic 

Grantees 

(n = 353 

schools) 

Nongrantees 

(n = 348 

schools) 

Grantees 

(n = 628 

schools) 

Nongrantees 

(n = 

16,076 

schools) 

Grantees 

(n = 276 

schools) 

Nongrantees 

(n = 277 

schools) 

Grantees 

(n = 481 

schools) 

Nongrantees 

(n = 

12,687 

schools) 

 

School enrollment size 

Less than 300................ 31.4 32.2 39.8 44.2 29.3 30.7 37.4 42.2 

300–499 34.8 32.2 35.0 31.2 34.8 32.1 35.0 31.2 

500 or more................... 33.7 35.6 25.2 24.6 35.9 37.2 27.6 26.6 

 

Level 

Elementary.................... 47.0 45.7 57.4 53.7 47.1 45.5 57.9 53.0 

Middle 27.2 27.9 20.4 16.0** 30.1 30.3 23.0 17.1**

Secondary/ 

 combined ................ 25.8 26.4 22.3 30.3** 22.8 24.2 19.0 29.9**

 

Total expenditures per 

student, spring 

2003 

Small 35.7 35.3 34.3 31.7 33.7 31.0 32.6 25.5 

Medium 32.9 33.6 31.8 32.5 34.1 36.1 32.8 35.8 

Large 31.4 31.0 34 35.8 32.2 32.9 34.6 38.8 

 

Total FTE staff, 

spring 2003 

Small 49.0 44.3 54.8 50.4 48.9 46.2 55.0 52.1 

Medium 21.2 17.5 19.6 18.0 20.3 16.2 17.4 16.6 

Large 29.7 38.2 25.7 31.6 30.8 37.5 27.5 31.3 

* p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01 comparisons are between grantees and nongrantees. 

Note: Percentages may not add to 100 because of rounding. 
59 

Exhibit 5-2 does provide evidence suggesting there were substantial “baseline” differences in test 

scores between schools that had test scores available in 2002–03 and those that did not.13 For example, 

the mean test result in 2003–04 among grantees was 57.4 for those with test scores available for 2002–03, 

and 36.0 among grantees without test scores available for 2002–03. Similar differences appeared among 

the nongrantees, and all of these differences were statistically significant (though none of the differences 

between grantees and nongrantees were statistically significant). Thus, if 2002–03 data were available for 

all schools, the rate of improvement for both grantees and nongrantees may be somewhat lower than the 

estimates produced here. 

Exhibit 5-2 

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

Mean Test Scores in Reading 

Number of Schools Unweighted Weighted School Year 

Grantees 

Nongrantees Grantees Nongrantees Grantees Nongrantees 

 

2002–03 ...................................................... 108 111 50.7 48.7 53.3 52.4 

2003–04 (total) ........................................... 270 268 42.7 42.4 43.8 41.8 

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

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

2004–05 (total) ........................................... 271 274 47.1 45.5 48.1 44.5 

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

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

Prior test scorea

........................................... 271 268 41.2 40.9 42.3 41.1 

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

From 2002–03 if available; otherwise from 2003–04. 

Comparisons Across States

State test scores are difficult to compare across states. The tests vary in the specific content 

covered, the quantitative scales used for scoring, and in the performance levels required to achieve 

proficiency. This variation is especially an issue if one uses “raw” (unstandardized) test scores; for 

example, a score of 80 in one state might indicate a higher level of proficiency than a score of 300 in 

another. Also, because of differences in the content areas covered and in the weighting given to each 

component of a score, a score on one test cannot be accurately converted to show what score a student 

would achieve on another test. 

To establish a common metric that would be more meaningful across states, this analysis focused 

on the percentage of students who met or exceeded their state’s standard for proficiency. This measure 

has a standard scale across all states (i.e., ranging from 0 to 100 percent), unlike the raw test scores. It 

also has a more standardized meaning: even if states differ on how they measure proficiency or on the 

levels they set to indicate proficiency, policy-makers evaluate students and schools in terms of their 

ability to satisfy the state standards. Assuming that each state’s test is designed to match the state’s 

curriculum (a requirement of the No Child Left Behind Act that states have been working to meet), this 

metric changes the focus from what scores are achieved (which may change depending on the test and the 

curriculum) to schools’ success in training students based on the state curriculum. 

 

13 Ideally, one would use 2002–03 tests scores to measure such baseline differences, but by definition they are unavailable. However, typically, 

test scores at the school level change little from one year to another; thus, the 2003–04 test scores serve not only as a partial surrogate but also 

as the actual baseline used in some of the analyses in this report. 
60 

In principle, the state proficiency metric can be just as precise as a raw score, with two main 

exceptions. First, because the percentage scores are typically rounded to the nearest integer in the 

database, a percentage score may not be as sensitive to small changes as the raw score. Second, to the 

extent that states are successful in getting all students to achieve proficiency, there may be insufficient 

variation to compare grantees and nongrantees. Such a lack of variation could occur either if schools are 

successful in raising students’ skills/knowledge or if states set such minimal levels for demonstrating 

proficiency that essentially all students can pass.14 In practice, the percentages showed sufficient variation 

so neither of these two factors presented a serious problem for this analysis, though the second factor may 

become increasingly important as states seek to demonstrate progress in later years. Also, LSL grants are 

directed at disadvantaged districts (and often further directed by the districts to the most disadvantaged 

schools within those districts), and such districts/schools typically have lower proficiency levels among 

their students, lessening the likelihood that schools might be so near to the top that there is little room for 

improvement. 

However, using this state proficiency metric tends to place the focus on students who are close to 

the cutoff point. Some schools/districts may choose to focus services on students just below the cutoff 

point, figuring that this approach gives them the best chance of satisfying the standards. In this case, 

changes in the percentage of students who are proficient may tend to overstate the degree to which 

improvement is shared across all students. Alternatively, this measure can mask any student-level changes 

in performance that may have occurred above or below the cutoff point. Even substantial changes in 

student achievement can go undetected when average student performance does not cross a given 

threshold, leading to underestimates of the improvements in student performance. Both types of risks are 

inherent in the way that schools are currently evaluated (i.e., in terms of the percentage of students 

reaching proficiency); ideally, this analysis would use student-level data to examine changes in test scores 

across all students, but the use of school-level results does correspond with the expectations currently 

being placed on the schools. It is difficult to know how these considerations might interact with the 

evaluation of the LSL program. School libraries, by their nature, are meant to serve all students. However, 

the books that libraries choose to purchase may have greater relevance to some students than to others, the 

ability to make use of the library may vary among different groups of students, and the need for library 

services also varies among students. Focusing on changes among students near the cutoff point may or 

may not reflect those students who are most affected by the LSL grants. 

As a second tool to facilitate making comparisons across states (and localities), this analysis 

focused on how test scores changed from one year to another rather than on the absolute levels of the 

scores. Comparing changes in scores puts the focus on whether the grantees showed greater improvement, 

which is a meaningful concept for any school.15 School and student characteristics tend to stay stable over 

 

14 In such situations, one could use the analogous approach of examining the percentage of students who exceed the standards (e.g., those who 

reach the next proficiency level, which typically is labeled “advanced”). This presumably would help to increase the amount of variation and 

thus increase one’s ability to measure differences over time and across schools. However, the data then may not be as directly comparable 

across states; proficiency can be considered as a type of benchmark, while advanced is more difficult to interpret (a) because it is not given the 

same policy importance and (b) because the definition may vary across the states. As an analogy, graduation requirements differ across schools 

and states but still are a benchmark; thus, it is meaningful to identify a person as a high school graduate or a college graduate as well as to 

examine a school in terms of the percentage of students who graduate. It is more difficult to interpret the percentage who exceeded graduation 

requirements unless one knows what requirements were exceeded and by how much. 

15 As noted, there is a possibility that schools could start at such high levels of proficiency that they have little room for improvement (based on 

that particular measure). Similarly, it is possible that it is easier to produce changes in proficiency levels at some schools than at others (e.g., if 

some schools have a larger proportion of students who need only small improvements to reach proficiency). Regression to the mean could 

occasionally be a factor (e.g., if some districts direct grants to those schools with the lowest proficiency levels), though regression to the mean 

should be less of a factor when working with schoolwide averages than when working with individual student test scores. Regression to the 

mean is most an issue when students are selected because of their low (or high) scores. In such cases, some of the students are likely to have 

low (or high) scores because of measurement error and very different scores when they are tested again. Schoolwide means should be much 

more stable, and in fact, typically should vary only slightly from year to year. Also, schools are not being targeted in the research because of 

their low scores; it is true that some districts target schools with the lowest scores, but even that targeting may often be based on long-term 
61 

time, so schools typically show little change from one year to another. In statistical terms, if the mean test 

scores for one year are used to predict the mean test scores for the next year, 96 percent of the variance is 

explained. A focus on changes in test scores also lessens the need to model every factor that influences 

test scores; in fact, variables that would be important when predicting absolute test scores often drop out 

when predicting change. 

In summary, focusing on the percentage of students who were proficient helps to adjust for 

differences across states in how test scores are computed, and focusing on the change in scores rather than 

on actual scores further lessens the need to model those factors that have a consistent effect on students 

from one year to another (whether those differences are differences in testing, in school characteristics or 

in student characteristics). 

Use of Measures of Correlation

This analysis is based on the correlation of student test scores with participation in the LSL 

program (or with features related to participation in LSL). Any such analysis is always subject to the 

possibility that other unmeasured factors may be responsible for the correlations. For this reason, 

researchers prefer experimental designs (e.g., with participation in LSL determined by random 

assignment). 

To lessen the chances that false correlations may appear, this research uses a quasi-experimental 

design in which a set of comparison schools was chosen that did not participate in LSL but that otherwise 

was similar to the LSL participants on demographic variables available to the study team. Because 

baseline achievement data were not available at the time of sampling, we were unable to match 

comparison and LSL schools on prior achievement. Still, the fact that schools or districts chose to seek 

the grants and succeeded in obtaining them may distinguish these schools in important ways from other 

schools. It remains possible that other unmeasured factors such as preexisting differences in test scores 

may be responsible for LSL-related changes in test scores. This research is necessarily exploratory and 

subject to confirmation or contradiction by later research. 

Specification of Variables

The decision to focus on change over time helps to simplify the regression models. Many of the 

factors that might be presumed to influence student test scores could be implicitly included in the model 

through the measure of prior test scores. 

Unfortunately, only 219 of the 553 schools (40 percent) had data available for the year before the 

grant. Thus, this study used three approaches. First, to maximize the available sample, one set of 

regressions looked only at change in the year after the grant (i.e., comparing 2003–04 with 2004–05). 

This approach is based on the hypothesis that most, if not all, of any LSL-related changes in test scores 

were likely to occur in the year after the grant because of the time required to implement the grant (e.g., 

the time required to purchase and distribute new books) and for students to respond to those changes. 

Necessarily, however, this approach is incapable of measuring LSL-related changes in the year of the 

grant. Second, an alternative set of models also predicted 2004–05 test results using the school test score 

results from the baseline year, 2002–03. This approach controls for preexisting differences in 

achievement and allows the measurement of grant-associated change in the year of the grant, though at 

the cost of losing more than half of the respondents. Third, as a way of incorporating all of the available 

test score data, another set of models used a single variable that contained either 2002–03 results (when 

 trends rather than on chance fluctuations. On balance, the directing of LSL grants to disadvantaged districts and schools as well as the selection 

of comparison schools that were also in disadvantaged districts helps to lessen the chances either that schools would have little room for 

improvement or that grantees would have greatly different opportunities for improvement from nongrantees because of differences in their 

starting levels of proficiency. 
62 

they were available) or 2003–04 results (if 2002–03 results were not available). The model also included 

a dummy variable indicating whether test score data were available for 2002–03. This approach allows 

the change over time to be broken in two parts: the coefficient for the test score variable represents the 

average change from 2003–04 to 2004–05, and the coefficient for the dummy variable represents the 

additional change experienced among schools with test scores from 2002–03.16 If schools did experience 

some LSL-related change in 2003–04, then this approach might be expected to produce results 

somewhere between the first two approaches, capturing some of the change that appeared in 2003–04 but 

not all of it. 

A second set of choices involved how to model grantees’ participation. The simplest approach was 

to use a dichotomous variable (taking the values of 1 for grantees and 0 for nongrantees) so the coefficient 

shows the estimated change in reading proficiency that is associated with receiving an LSL grant. This 

approach has the advantage of directly estimating the change in test scores associated with receiving the 

LSL grants. As a slight modification to that approach, some models in this analysis also include a 

dichotomous variable measuring whether the grantee had also received an LSL grant in a previous year. 

On the one hand, if test score data were available for the year before the first grant, one might hypothesize 

that the repeat grantees would show larger total increases than other grantees because of the additional aid 

they received. On the other hand, given the limited number of years of data used in this analysis, there is a 

risk that the “base” scores taken from 2003 or 2004 may include some of the early improvement 

associated with the first grant so the total improvement related to the grants could be underestimated. 

An alternative way of measuring grantees’ participation is to model the specific changes they made 

as part of the grant (e.g., increasing the number of books the library purchased per student and increasing 

the number of hours the library was open).17 This alternative approach does not directly estimate 

improvements that are associated with receiving the LSL grants because grantees varied in the degree to 

which they made each change. However, it potentially provides information on which aspects of 

implementing the grant are most associated with improved test scores and, thus, may provide information 

on how to better implement the program in the future. Also, if some grantees failed to make these 

particular changes, or if some nongrantees made the changes even without receiving the grants, then the 

differences between grantees and nongrantees may be small and statistically insignificant, even if the 

programmatic changes themselves were useful for many grantees. Thus, this alternative approach helps to 

measure whether some grantees were helped by the grants and whether these particular focuses of the 

LSL grant program are appropriate focuses. 

Finally, one theory is that the relationship between LSL participation and achievement scores 

varies between grade levels. Therefore, a set of regression models were calculated for elementary schools 

and secondary schools. Middle/junior-high schools were combined with senior-high schools to retain a 

sufficient number of schools in the analysis. The number of schools at each level was roughly half that of 

the overall analyses (256 elementary schools and 296 secondary schools), resulting in increased standard 

errors and a reduced likelihood of finding statistically significant results. 

 

16 These two school years are not the only possibilities. It also is possible that it may take several years for an LSL grant to show its full influence, 

in which case measuring change ending in 2004–05 may understate the ultimate influence of the grant. In later years, when additional test score 

data become available, it may be desirable to reexamine the association of the grants with student literacy, using a longer timeframe. 

17 These particular measures were chosen (a) because they reflect major emphases of the LSL program, (b) because the survey data suggest they 

were influenced by the program, and (c) because they could be measured with a fairly high level of precision. Another emphasis of the LSL 

program is on increased collaboration, but the amount of increase in collaboration is much more difficult to measure and is often more 

subjective. This study did examine some potential measures of collaboration and found no significant association between these measures and 

improvement in student test scores. It is difficult to attach any meaning to the lack of statistically significant findings, however, because of the 

weakness of the measures that were used. 
63 

Regression Through the Origin

Typically, regression models include an intercept term, and the regression results can be interpreted 

as modeling variation around the mean, as represented by the intercept. Sometimes, however, the 

intercept is not meaningful from a theoretical perspective, and it is dropped from the model. For this 

study, if the intercept is dropped, then the model has a clear interpretation: the coefficient for the test 

result variable reflects the overall proportional change in the scores from one year to the next. For 

example, a coefficient of 1.03 would reflect an overall improvement of 3 percent in the test results, and a 

coefficient of 0.98 would reflect an overall decline of 2 percent. Alternately, including the coefficient 

results in a less plausible model: one then would be predicting the 2004–05 results as being equal to the 

overall mean for the same year, plus an adjustment based on the earlier test results for each school. The 

coefficient for the test result variable thus is much more difficult to interpret, as is a determination of 

whether there was an overall pattern of improvement from one year to another. When comparing both 

versions of the regression model, regression through the origin also appeared to perform better from a 

statistical perspective: R2

 increased from 0.84 to 0.96. R2 has a different meaning when using regression 

through the origin and can even be negative, but the improvement in R2 can be interpreted as indicating 

that regression through the origin provides a better fit of the data. Also, the standard errors for the test 

score measure decreased (e.g., from 0.030 to 0.016) while the other standard errors remained roughly the 

same, which could be interpreted as suggesting that regression through the origin provided a better fit of 

the relationship between past and current test scores. Therefore, regression through the origin is used in 

this report. 

Construction of Statistical Models

The structure of the models is based on the assumption that the mean proficiency levels for 2005 

can be predicted by starting with the mean proficiency for 2004 (or 2003), plus some average change over 

time that is common to all schools and some improvement because of the specific changes that were made 

by the schools (i.e., receiving an LSL grant or increasing the number of books per student and/or the 

number of hours the library was open). 

The base model thus can be estimated as 

Proficiency2005 = β x Proficiency2004 + ε

where the coefficient β represents the average change across schools from their proficiency levels in 2004 

(e.g., β = 1.05 represents an average improvement of 5 percent), and ε represents random error. This 

model was highly successful, predicting 96 percent of the variance, indicating that it is possible to predict 

school test scores based on test scores from the previous year with a high degree of accuracy and by using 

no other variables to adjust for differences among schools. On average, schools eligible for the LSL 

program showed a 5 percent increase in the percentage of students who met or exceeded proficiency on 

their reading/English state assessment. 

To directly estimate the level of improvement associated with receiving the LSL grant, model 1a 

modifies the base model by adding either a single term representing LSL participation in 2003–04 or two 

terms measuring LSL participation in 2003–04 and in a prior year. 

(Model 1) Proficiency2005 = β1 x Proficiency2004 + β2 x Grantee2004 + ε

(Model 1a) Proficiency2005 = β1 x Proficiency2004 + β2 x Grantee2004 + β3 x GranteePrior + ε
64 

Here, the coefficient β1 represents the average change across districts from their proficiency levels in 

2003–04, β2 represents the improvement associated with being a grantee in 2003–04, and β3 represents the 

improvement associated with being a repeat grantee. 

To measure whether other school reform efforts might be associated with test score increases rather 

than LSL, model 1b modifies model 1a by adding measures of participation in Title I, Reading First, 

Early Reading First, and Comprehensive School Reform. Reading First and Comprehensive School 

Reform were not statistically significant and were dropped from the models. The measures added were 

each dummy variables, taking the value of 1 if a school participated in a particular program and 0 

otherwise. Early Reading First is a program that applies only to elementary schools, not middle schools or 

high schools. However, this circumstance does not present a problem in the statistical models. In the 

models that include both elementary and secondary schools, the measure takes the value of 0 when 

applied to secondary schools; thus, the model tests for an extra gain in test scores in participating 

elementary schools relative to schools that did not participate (either because they did not have Early 

Reading First Programs or because they were secondary schools). Early Reading First is not included in 

the models for secondary schools only; it would then always take the value of 0 and would not be 

meaningful. 

(Model 1b) Proficiency2005 = β1 x Proficiency2004 + β2 x Grantee2004 + β3 x TitleI + β4 x EReadFirst 

+ 

β5 x GranteePrior + ε

To estimate the level of improvement associated with specific library improvements, model 2 

replaces the terms measuring LSL participation with terms measuring the increase in the number of books 

that libraries purchased per student and in the number of hours the library was open. Because these two 

terms may interact with each other, they were included not only together in one regression equation but 

also separately in additional regression equations (models 2a and 2b).

(Model 2) Proficiency2005 = β1 x Proficiency2004 + β2 x Books + β3 x Hours + ε

(Model 2a) Proficiency2005 = β1 x Proficiency2004 + β2 x Hours + ε

(Model 2b) Proficiency2005 = β1 x Proficiency2004 + β2 x Books + ε

Finally, because some improvements in test scores may have occurred in 2003–04 and would be 

missed in a time comparison between 2003–04 and 2004–05, the models above were all repeated using an 

alternative measure of early proficiency (the proficiency level in 2002–03 when available and the level in 

2003–04 otherwise), plus a new variable indicating which data were used (1 if the proficiency measure is 

for 2002–03 and 0 if the measure is for 2003–04). 

(Alternate Model 1) Proficiency2005 = β1 x Proficiency2003/2004 + β2 x Grantee2004 + β3 x Data2003 +ε

(Alternate Model 1a) Proficiency2005 = β1 x Proficiency2003/2004 + β2 x Grantee2004 + β3 x GranteePrior

+ β4 x Data2003 + ε

(Alternate Model 2) Proficiency2005 = β1 x Proficiency2003/2004 + β2 x Books + β3 x Hours + β3 x 

Data2003 + ε

(Alternate Model 2a) Proficiency2005 = β1 x Proficiency2003/2004 + β2 x Hours + β3 x Data2003 + ε

(Alternate Model 2b) Proficiency2005 = β1 x Proficiency2003/2004 + β2 x Books + β3 x Data2003 + ε
65 

These models can be interpreted in the same way as the previous models, except that β1 represents the 

average improvement over time from 2003–04 to 2004–05, and the coefficient before Data2003 (either β2

or β3) represents the average improvement over time from 2002–03 to 2003–04). 

If data were available for individual students, then the models could alternatively be constructed as 

hierarchical models, with student-level and school-level variables examined in separate equations. 

Student-level data were not available, however, and all variables are measured at the school level. 

Because the test score analysis is based on the first LSL evaluation (i.e., for grants received in 

2003–04), the questionnaire data included in the file are from the same evaluation. Thus, some variables 

that appear to be of interest in earlier chapters of this report are not available for the test score analysis. 

For example, Exhibit 4-27 shows that more grantee libraries provided professional development resources 

on Teaching Children to Read. However, these data are not available for the first evaluation. 

Standard Errors

The regression estimates were calculated using replicate weights to adjust for the use of a complex 

sample. The resulting standard errors ranged from 0.9 to 1.7 times the standard errors produced by 

standard statistical software for surveys based on simple random samples. Thus, in many cases the use of 

standard statistical software would result in incorrect conclusions about the statistical significance of the 

estimates. 

Limitations and Design Issues 

This study raised a large number of important design and analysis issues, which are discussed in 

detail throughout this chapter. In this section, we provide a brief summary of these issues. 

• Random assignment. The schools were not randomly assigned to treatment and control 

groups. Therefore, no causal inferences about these findings can be made. 

• Sample selection. The grantee schools were chosen through a stratified random sample of 

schools receiving LSL grants in 2003–04. Comparison schools were chosen to collectively 

show a similar range of characteristics as the grantee schools. Because baseline achievement 

data were not available at the time of sampling, we were unable to match comparison and LSL 

schools on prior achievement. Although the sample design provided for every district receiving 

an LSL grant to have at least one school chosen, LSL grants were not equally distributed across 

all states. Similarly, because the comparison schools were chosen from the same states as much 

as possible (to have test scores that were more comparable), they also were not distributed 

across all states. The sample includes data from only 24 states. 

• Potential for selection bias. Exhibits 5-1 and 5-2 show that the comparison schools were 

largely similar but not identical to the grantee schools, both with respect to the sampling 

characteristics and with respect to baseline reading scores. However, baseline reading scores 

are not available for 60 percent of the sample, thus we are unable to definitively establish 

baseline equivalence on achievement for the full set of respondents. This limitation was true 

not only for the original set of questionnaire respondents but also for the reduced set of schools 

for which test score data were available. Aside from the comparisons shown in Exhibit 5-1, 

there could be important unobserved differences between the grantee and comparison schools, 

though such variables are likely to be at least correlated with the variables in Exhibit 5-1. 
66 

• Weighting. Comparison schools were weighted to represent all schools in districts that were 

eligible for but had not received LSL grants. Weighted statistics can change the degree to 

which the comparison groups show the same distribution of characteristics as the grantee 

schools. More specifically, weighting increased the differences between grantee and 

comparison schools, though the differences still were not large (Exhibit 5-1 and 5-2). 

• Test scores used. The analysis used the percentage of students considered proficient on state 

reading tests. Such proficiency scores ignore any student-level changes in performance that 

may have occurred above or below the cutoff point and could either understate or overstate the 

degree to which change is shared across all students. 

• Years for which data were available. True pretest data were available only for 40 percent of 

the schools included in the analyses. Some analysis models are based solely on the schools for 

which true baseline data from 2002–03 were available to control for preexisting differences in 

achievement between LSL and non-LSL schools. Other models predict the 2004–05 scores 

using data from the year of the grant (2003–04) instead of the baseline year (2002–03). This 

approach allows more of the sample to be included in the analysis, but it also assumes that 

there is no LSL-associated change in achievement during the year of the grant and does not 

control for preexisting differences between the LSL and non-LSL schools in the sample. A 

third set of models uses a hybrid approach, incorporating all of the respondents and using 

2002–03 data when they were available, but using 2003–04 data when 2002–03 data were not 

available. When this study was conducted, data after 2004–05 were unavailable, which 

precluded any analysis of extended changes in test scores following the receipt of the grants. 

• Regression to the mean. When individuals are chosen for a study based on attributes such as 

low test scores, some are likely to have unusually low scores because of measurement error. 

When they are tested again, the new measure may show great improvement and may be falsely 

interpreted as real change in reading proficiency, when it actually represents only a more 

accurate measure of reading proficiency. This study did not target individuals with low test 

scores, but some districts did target low-performing schools when allocating LSL grants to 

their schools. This situation could indirectly create the potential for regression to the mean. 

However, several factors lessen the likelihood of this problem. First, the comparison schools 

were chosen to match the grantee schools, though not by using test scores, so they should show 

the same potential for regression to the mean as the grantee schools. Exhibit 5-2 shows that for 

the 40 percent of the sample with baseline reading scores, the scores were actually quite similar 

before the grants for grantees and the comparison schools. Second, school-level data tend to be 

much more stable than individual-level data; that is, individual fluctuations balance out when 

viewed collectively and, in fact, varied only slightly from year to year. Using test scores from 

one year to predict test scores in the following year explained 96 percent of the variance. Third, 

even when districts targeted the schools that were the lowest performers, they may have based 

those judgments on multiple years rather than on temporary fluctuations. Thus, regression to 

the mean does not appear to present a serious issue for this study. 

• Potential for multiple concurrent reforms. The fact that a school receives an LSL grant may 

indicate something about the district and the school, for example, that the district/school has a 

strong reform orientation, that it is capable of preparing a comprehensive plan that will be 

approved by the U.S. Department of Education, and that it is actively involved in school 

improvement efforts. When multiple reforms occur simultaneously, it can be difficult or even 

impossible to determine how changes in test scores are related to specific reforms. The 

orientation of the district/school toward reform may be as important, or more important, than a 

specific reform program. Given some evidence in this study that the grantee schools were more 
67 

likely to participate in other such school improvement efforts, it is difficult to determine the 

precise amount of improvement associated with LSL participation. 

Because of these issues, no definitive statement can be made based on these data as to whether LSL was 

associated with improved test scores. 

Presentation of Multiple Measures of Test Scores 

 

Because the schools in this study were not randomly assigned and the study’s comparison group 

sample was not matched on previous achievement, preprogram data (2002–03) are important to control 

for possible preexisting differences in achievement that could bias estimates of LSL-related changes in 

achievement. Ideally, the test score analysis would include data for at least three years for every school 

and preferably more. There would be three benefits to having such data: (1) the statistical models could 

better estimate what trend in scores existed at each school before receiving the LSL grants; (2) if data for 

later years were included, then the models could examine whether any increase in test scores persisted or 

changed in later years; and (3) the models could test the empirical question of whether the grants showed 

some association with improved test scores during the year of the grant or whether a longer time period 

was required before any change in test scores could be found. 

Unfortunately, only a limited number of years of data were available. At the time of the study, no 

data were available for the years after 2004–05, and data were unavailable for 2002–03, the baseline year, 

in 60 percent of the sample. Thus, Exhibit 5-3 presents findings from three parallel sets of regression 

models, each using a different approach to measuring change in test scores over time. 

• Time A. The first analysis uses scores from 2003–04 (the grant year) to predict 2004–05 

scores. This approach maximizes the sample that can be included in the analysis. However, it 

also assumes that there is no LSL-associated change in achievement during the year of the 

grant and that there are no preexisting differences between the LSL and non-LSL schools in the 

sample, both of which are untestable assumptions when using this approach. 

• Time B. The second analysis starts with test score data from the year before the grant (2002–

03), using those scores to predict improvements in 2004–05. This approach allows one to 

control for possible preexisting differences in achievement between LSL and non-LSL schools 

and to measure the full extent of LSL-related changes (at least in the first two years, though 

there could be benefits in later years). Unfortunately, test scores for 2002–03 were available 

only for 219 schools, so this analysis applied to less than half of the 553 schools in the first 

analysis. The reduction in the number of cases could reduce the chances of finding statistically 

significant relationships; further, if those 219 schools differed in important ways from the 

larger set, then this second approach may not properly represent what LSL-related changes 

appeared overall. This model by itself also cannot provide information about which years 

showed LSL-related improvements in test scores, though one can compare these results with 

those of the first analysis, using caution in making inferences given the differences in samples. 

• Time C. The third analysis also uses 2002–03 data where available to predict 2004–05 test 

scores, but rather than drop the 234 schools lacking 2002–03 data, it includes them by 

replacing the missing 2002–03 data with the test scores from 2003–04. So the regression 

estimates can properly distinguish between the two years, the analysis also includes a dummy 

variable that is 1 when data from 2002–03 were available and 0 otherwise. Thus, the 

coefficient for “prior test score” represents the average change across all schools from 2003–04 

to 2004–05 while the coefficient for “test scores available in 2002–03” represents the average 

change between 2002–03 and 2003–04. The coefficient for LSL grantee represents the average 

LSL-related improvement when both grantees with 2002–03 data and those with only 2003–04 
68

Exhibit 5-3 

Regression Models to Estimate Association of 2003–04 LSL Grants With 2004–05 Test Scores, With Various Baseline 

Time A 

Using 2003–04 Test Scores 

(n = 553) 

Time B 

Using 2002–03 Test Scores 

(n = 219) 

Variable 

Estimate Standard Error P-value Estimate Standard Error P-value Estimat

Model 1—Overall test of LSL grant Prior test score........................................................................... 1.05 0.017 0.000 1.12 0.026 0.000 1.03 

LSL grantee ............................................................................... 2.22 1.076 0.039 3.77 1.733 0.030 2.71 Test scores available for 2002–03 ............................................. 5.30 Model 1a—Overall test of LSL grant Prior test score........................................................................... 1.05 0.017 0.000 1.12 0.026 0.000 1.03 LSL grantee ............................................................................... 2.40 1.077 0.026 4.07 1.753 0.021 2.79 LSL grantee for 2 or more years................................................ -4.20 4.743 0.376 -2.45 4.205 0.561 -1.92 

Test scores available for 2002–03 ............................................. 5.31 

Model 1b—Overall test of LSL grant and other reforms Prior test score........................................................................... 1.00 0.021 0.000 1.05 0.032 0.000 1.00 LSL grantee ............................................................................... 0.96 1.043 0.357 3.10 1.776 0.081 1.93 Title I 3.94 1.081 0.000 4.96 2.140 0.021 2.78 Early Reading First.................................................................... 6.26 1.501 0.000 Test scores available for 2002–03 ............................................. 4.81 

Model 2—Test of library changes Prior test score........................................................................... 1.04 0.018 0.000 1.12 0.030 0.000 1.01 

Increase in hours the school library was open ........................... 0.45 0.260 0.083 -0.18 0.797 0.823 0.11 Increase in books per student..................................................... 0.47 0.193 0.014 0.40 0.569 0.487 0.49 Test scores available for 2002–03 ............................................. 6.22 Model 2a—Test of library changes Prior test score........................................................................... 1.05 0.016 0.000 1.12 0.024 0.000 1.03 Increase in hours the school library was open ........................... 0.41 0.259 0.115 -0.16 0.778 0.837 0.08 Test scores available for 2002–03 ............................................. 5.36 Model 2b—Test of library changes Prior test score........................................................................... 1.04 0.018 0.000 1.11 0.032 0.000 1.01 Increase in books per student..................................................... 0.42 0.192 0.029 0.35 0.543 0.516 0.44 Test scores available for 2002–03 ............................................. 6.34 

Exhibit reads: Model 1, using data for 2003–04, indicates that test scores for both grantees and nongrantees increased by 5 percent compared with 2003–0

were 2.2 percentage points higher than would be expected if they had not received the grants. Both statistics were statistically significant, with p-values b

Note: R2 ranged from 0.955 to 0.973 across all models. 

Source: National Longitudinal School-Level State Assessment Database (2003, 2004, 2005); first evaluation, school library media center survey question
69 

data are mixed together; it thus can capture LSL-related improvements in 2003–04 in some 

schools but not in other schools. This last approach is not an ideal measure because it cannot 

fully control for preexisting differences in achievement between LSL and non-LSL schools and 

may still understate or overstate the total LSL-related change. However, unlike the first 

approach, this third approach can capture at least some of the LSL-related change in 2003–04 

while it also allows all of the data to be included.18

Findings 

Following are the results of the analyses. 

• LSL participation. No definitive statement can be made based on these data as to whether 

LSL was associated with improved test scores. Although some models showed a statistically 

significant relationship between LSL participation and improved test scores, models that 

included measures of other school reforms did not. 

– In the most basic models, the percentage of students who met or exceeded the 

proficiency requirements increased significantly by between 2.2 and 3.8 percentage 

points among grantees, depending on the model used. The estimates were roughly 

similar whether or not the regression model included a measure of participation in LSL 

before 2003–04 (models 1 and 1a).19 

– However, when other school improvement programs (Title I and Reading First) were 

added to the models, the improvement associated with LSL participation no longer was 

statistically significant at the 0.05 level (model 1b). Thus, it may be these other reforms 

that best explain the improvement in test scores. 

– Models A, B and C all showed highly similar findings. The LSL coefficients were 

largest when 2002–03 data were used alone and smallest when 2002–03 data were 

excluded. This pattern is consistent with the hypothesis that there were LSL-related 

improvements in both 2003–04 and 2004–05, although the small magnitude of the 

differences is consistent with most of the improvement appearing in 2004–05. 

However, because the changes across the models are not statistically significant, one 

can neither be sure that the models truly differ in their findings nor attribute specific 

 

18 An alternative approach would to add another dummy variable to the model that is 1 when the school is an LSL-grantee and the school has data 

for 2002–03 and 0 otherwise. This would allow one to separately measure the LSL-related increases in 2003–04 and 2004–05. If the number of 

cases were larger, such an approach might be useful, but with the current number of cases, this approaches makes both LSL coefficients 

statistically insignificant. Thus, Exhibit 5-2 instead uses an overall measure of LSL-related change even though this statistic reflects an average 

across two years. 

19 An analysis of the residuals identified a few schools with exceptionally high changes in test scores. These exceptionally large changes seem 

likely to be the result of changes having nothing to do with school libraries, for example, changes in the school boundaries (and thus in the 

student populations served). Deleting 16 observations with changes greater than 25 percentage points produced statistical findings that were 

roughly similar to those shown here. The coefficient for LSL grantee did become statistically insignificant at the 0.05 level (p value = 0.052) in 

model 1 when using 2003–04 as the baseline, but remained significant using the other two approaches (p value = 0.018 using 2002–03 and p

value = 0.012 using the combination). It was significant in model 1a for all three approaches (p-value=0.034, 0.013, and 0.011, respectively). In 

model 1b, it was insignificant when using 2003–04 data (p value = 0.298), significant at the 0.05 level when using 2002–03 data (p value = 

0.038), and significant at the 0.10 level when using a combination of 2002–03 and 2003–04 data (p value = 0.066). Although LSL participation 

reached the 0.05 level of statistical significance when using 2002–03 data, the measure for Title I itself was not statistically significant (p value 

= 0.077), leaving some doubt about whether Title I belonged in the model. The values for an increase in the number of books per student 

(model 2b) remain statistically significant when using the first and third approaches (p value = 0.024 and 0.014, respectively) and insignificant 

when using only 2002–03 data (p value = 0.424). 
70 

reasons for such differences. Also, because the two-year change estimates were slightly 

greater than the change between 2003–04 and 2004–05, there is no evidence of a dropoff in test scores in the year of the grant. 

• Library features. As noted earlier, one of the primary goals of the LSL program is to increase 

students’ access to the library during nonschool hours, while another is to increase the 

resources available to the library, including the number of books. As the survey results 

(discussed elsewhere in this report) indicate, both of these variables were associated with 

participation in the LSL program. The regression analysis indicated that increasing the number 

of books per student that the library purchased was associated with improved student test 

scores not only when using 2003–04 test scores as the baseline but also when using a 

combination of 2003–04 and 2003–04 test scores. It was not significant when restricting the 

analysis to schools with 2002–03 test score data, possibly because of the reduced number of 

cases available for analysis. Increasing the number of hours the library was open was not 

significant at the 0.05 level in any of the models or approaches. There was much more 

variation among schools in the acquisition of books than in changes in the number of hours the 

library was open, and this difference may help to explain the stronger statistical findings with 

respect to books. Among grantees, 67 percent acquired more than 1 book per student, and 11 

percent acquired more than 5. By contrast, 51 percent of grantees made no change in the 

number of hours, and 33 percent made changes of up to 5 hours per week. 

Differences by Instructional Level

Exhibit 5-4 displays a set of models in which results were separated by elementary and secondary 

schools (both middle and high schools). These models provide a way of testing whether LSL participation 

may have different relationships to student test scores at different grade levels. These analyses, based on 

the findings from the earlier models, were conducted using a combination of 2002–03 and 2003–04 scores 

to predict 2004–05 scores (as in Exhibit 5-3); using 2002–03 scores alone would be problematic because 

the reduced number of cases would not easily support subsetting to only elementary or secondary schools. 

For brevity, Exhibit 5-4 omits model 1 (because the inclusion of repeat grantees in model 1a resulted in 

important changes to the estimates), model 1b (because Early Reading First was not statistically 

significant), and models 2 and 2a (because only the increase in the number of books per student was 

statistically significant). 

The results shown in Exhibit 5-4 suggest that LSL was associated with levels of changes in test 

scores in secondary schools that were different from those in elementary schools. In elementary schools, 

there was no significant relationship between LSL participation and student scores, whether or not 

adjustments for other school reform efforts were included in the model. However, there was still a 

significant relationship between an increase in the number of books and an increase in student test scores. 

By contrast, in secondary schools, LSL participation was significantly related with improved test scores 

in model 1a (using 0.05 as the cutoff). However, an increase in the number of books was not significantly 

related to improved test scores in secondary scores, despite a significant relationship in elementary 

schools. 
71 

Exhibit 5-4 

Regression Models to Estimate Association of LSL Grants With Student Test Scores, 

Using 2002–03 Test Scores (Where Available) to Predict 2004–05 Test Scores, 

by Instructional Level 

Variable Estimate Standard 

Error P-value

Elementary schools 

Model 1a—Overall test of LSL grant 

Prior test scorea

........................................................................ 1.03 0.027 0.000 

Test scores available for 2002–03 ........................................... 5.95 2.263 0.009 

LSL grantee ............................................................................. 2.21 1.580 0.162 

LSL grantee for 2 or more years.............................................. 1.07 5.572 0.847 

R2 = 0.957 

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

Prior test scorea

........................................................................ 0.99 0.031 0.000 

Test scores available for 2002–03 ........................................... 5.93 2.207 0.007 

LSL grantee ............................................................................. 1.24 1.571 0.429 

Title I....................................................................................... 3.26 1.161 0.005 

R2 = 0.957 

Model 2b—Test of library changes 

Prior test scorea

........................................................................ 1.01 0.032 0.000 

Test scores available for 2002–03 ........................................... 6.53 2.603 0.012 

Increase in books per student................................................... 0.48 0.188 0.021 

R2 = 0.957 

Secondary schools 

Model 1a—Overall test of LSL grant 

Prior test scorea

........................................................................ 1.03 0.046 0.000 

Test scores available for 2002–03 ........................................... 4.24 2.202 0.055 

LSL grantee ............................................................................. 3.45 1.467 0.019 

LSL grantee for 2 or more years.............................................. -10.15 3.944 0.010 

R2

 = 0.957 

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

Prior test scorea

........................................................................ 1.01 0.057 0.000 

Test scores available for 2002–03 ........................................... 3.93 2.188 0.073 

LSL grantee ............................................................................. 2.78 1.424 0.052 

Title I....................................................................................... 2.22 1.870 0.236 

R2

 = 0.957 

Model 2b—Test of library changes 

Prior test scorea

........................................................................ 1.00 0.044 0.000 

Test scores available for 2002–03 ........................................... 6.13 2.270 0.007 

Increase in books per student................................................... 0.17 0.629 0.789 

R2

 = 0.957 a

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

Exhibit reads: Model 1a calculates that test scores for both grantees and nongrantees increased by 3 percent compared with 2003–

04. Both grantees and nongrantees also shared an additional 6 percentage point increase when compared with test scores in 2002–

03. Both of these statistics were statistically significant, with p-values below 0.05. The test scores for grantees were 2.2 

percentage points higher than would be expected if they had not received the grants and were an additional 1.1 percentage points 

higher if they received LSL grants for two or more years; however, neither of these statistics were statistically significant.

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

Source: National Longitudinal School-Level State Assessment Database (2003, 2004, 2005); first evaluation, school library 

media center survey questions, 1, 4 and 31. 
72 

Discussion

The measure of book purchases is the number of books purchased by the library per student rather 

than the total number of books. Consider this measure in context: The median enrollments were 460 for 

elementary schools, 700 for middle/junior-high schools and 775 for high schools or other schools. The 

median number of books added by grantees was 798 for elementary schools, 996 for middle/junior-high 

schools and 747 for high schools and other schools. From this perspective, grantees tended to add roughly 

one to two books per student, and only small changes in student literacy would be anticipated. However, 

from another perspective, book purchases sometimes were much higher, up to a maximum of 15,215 

books among elementary schools, 7,411 books among middle/junior-high schools and 7,324 books among 

high schools and other schools. One cannot directly equate book purchases with participation in the LSL 

program: some LSL schools purchased few books while some nongrantees purchased many. Also, the 

LSL program consists of more than buying books. Still, as data from the first-year evaluation shows, LSL 

participation was associated with purchasing 1,250 additional books (520 more than nongrantees), or 

about 2.9 additional books per student (1.5 more than among nongrantees). Based on these statistics, the 

expected total improvement associated with the book-purchasing component of the LSL program would 

be an increase of 1.3 percentage points, and the expected improvement with relation to nongrantees would 

be an increase of 0.7 percentage points. 

The value of additional book purchases may vary depending on the initial condition of the school 

libraries. The LSL grantees (and the comparison schools) were all in districts with high poverty levels, 

which often is correlated with lower levels of resources. Additionally, to obtain the LSL grants, the LSL 

grantees needed to not only demonstrate need (for example, through the use of a needs assessment) but 

also offer a plan for addressing their needs. Thus, these libraries are likely to have started with substantial 

deficits, and new purchases may have been especially helpful at these schools in making the holdings 

more interesting and relevant to the students. Because the districts were in areas of high poverty, the 

students’ homes also could be expected to have a low level of resources, so students may have had fewer 

options to meet their needs if their school libraries were not well equipped. By contrast, a school library 

that already has substantial holdings may not experience the same benefit from new purchases, and a 

school library serving more advantaged students may not have as much influence on students’ learning.20

Thus, the relationship between book purchases and student literacy could be nonlinear: for example, 

depending on the school’s initial starting point and the size of the purchases, the benefit from new 

purchases could diminish or there could even be a ceiling after which new purchases show little or no 

association with student literacy. The LSL data are not fully adequate for investigating this possibility 

because the sample was limited to eligible (high-poverty) districts. A plot comparing the new book 

purchases per student with the change in test scores reveals that there were a few outliers with 

exceptionally high increases in the number of books per student (i.e., 14 cases for which the increase was 

more than 10 books per student). If the outliers are deleted, then the association between book purchases 

and test scores is increased (the coefficient is increased from 0.42 to 1.69, and the p-value is reduced to 

0.012, with an R2

 of 0.957); this association is consistent with the benefits from additional book purchases 

decreasing after the book purchases reach a certain point. 

To the extent that increases in the book collection are associated with improved student test scores, 

there are several possible mechanisms that may be important. It may be that students (a) check out more 

books, (b) spend more time in the library, and/or (c) get more help from those materials that they use 

(e.g., because the materials are more up-to-date, more relevant or more interesting). Ideally, one would 

also have measures of the amount of time that students spend in the library, the number of materials they 

use, the ways they use those materials, the number and types of materials they check out from the library, 

 

20 It is also possible to argue that school libraries have more influence at advantaged schools because the students at such schools are better 

equipped to use the resources and services that the libraries offer. The point here is simply that one should be wary of extrapolating these 

findings to different types of schools. 
73 

and the time they spend reading at home. Most of these types of data were not available for this study. 

However, Exhibit 4-19 does indicate that grantees showed a statistically significant increase in students’ 

use of the library while nongrantees showed no change. These statistics are consistent with the observed 

relationship between new purchases and improved student test scores, but they are not conclusive. Also, 

other changes in the libraries may be as responsible or more responsible for the reported increases in 

library usage. 

Summary

No definitive statement can be made based on these data as to whether LSL was associated with 

changes in test scores. The LSL program feature that most clearly was related to improved test results was 

an increase in the number of books per student that were purchased by the library. Some differences 

appeared by instructional level, with LSL grantee status showing a stronger relationship to student test 

scores at the elementary-school level and an increase in the number of books per student showing a 

stronger relationship at the secondary-school level. 
74 
75 

Chapter 6 

Conclusions 

The LSL grants appear to have been targeted to the neediest schools, which were disadvantaged 

even when compared with other schools in districts having high levels of poverty. After the grants, the 

school libraries were brought up to a level of equality with the nongrantees and, sometimes, to a level that 

surpassed them. To a large degree, these findings echo those of the previous evaluation report. 

A new analysis showed that participation in the grant was significantly related to increases in test 

scores on state reading achievement assessments. However, one cannot definitively separate LSL 

participation from other school reform efforts in terms of their association with improved test scores. 

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

questions.

Summary of Findings: How Do Districts Allocate Funds and Are They Targeted to Schools With 

the Greatest Need for Improved Library Resources? 

Before receiving the grants, participating schools in grantee districts were more disadvantaged than 

schools in eligible districts that had not received grants. 

• 2005–06 grantee districts often reported selecting participating schools based on various kinds 

of disadvantages at those schools: 36 percent chose schools based on a lack of library 

resources, 22 percent based on the poverty level, and 20 percent based on those identified for 

improvement under No Child Left Behind. (Some districts used several factors in selecting 

participating schools.) 

• Of those grantee and nongrantee districts conducting needs assessments, grantees were more 

likely than nongrantees to identify needs. Staffing-related needs identified by more grantees 

than nongrantees included the need for more library staff (55 percent versus 33 percent, 

respectively), more professional development (75 percent versus 57 percent), more time for 

planning (64 percent versus 40 percent), and opening the library for more hours (75 percent 

versus 41 percent). Resource-related needs identified by more grantees than nongrantees were 

more up-to-date materials (95 percent versus 85 percent, respectively), more space (51 percent 

versus 33 percent), and more computer equipment (80 percent versus 70 percent). For the only 

area in which nongrantees were more likely to note a need (rewiring the library), the difference 

(33 percent versus 29 percent) was not statistically significant. 

• Before the grant, grantees were more likely than nongrantees to say their holdings were 

inadequate in all four general areas that were examined in the survey: the overall 

reading/English collection (34 percent versus 22 percent), print materials (35 percent versus 23 

percent), video/audiovisual materials (52 percent versus 37 percent), and computer software 

(57 percent versus 44 percent). 

• On average, before receiving LSL funding, the grantees were open for fewer days per week 

during the summer before the grant than nongrantees (2.9 versus 6.8) and slightly fewer hours 

during a typical full school week (31.5 versus 34.0). Grantees also were less likely to offer 

access outside of school hours in 2005 (39 percent versus 54 percent). 
76 

During the grant year, a large number of changes appeared among the grantees while relatively 

little change occurred among the nongrantees. Following are some of the major changes. 

• Grantees roughly tripled their expenditures on books and subscriptions as well as computer 

hardware while nongrantees showed little change. 

• Of those that conducted needs assessments, the grantees were often more likely than the 

nongrantees to make changes. These changes include getting more up-to-date materials (92 

percent versus 78 percent, respectively), providing more time for planning (39 percent versus 

21 percent), getting more computer equipment (60 percent versus 49 percent), increasing 

professional development (68 percent versus 41 percent), and increasing the hours the library is 

open (62 percent versus 24 percent). 

• Grantees started out with poorer holdings than nongrantees but ended with equal or higher 

percentages describing their holdings as adequate or excellent. For example, the percentage of 

grantees that considered their print materials supporting the English instructional program to be 

adequate or excellent increased from 65 percent before the grant to 89 percent after the grant. 

In comparison, the nongrantees showed no significant difference during the same time period 

(77 percent versus 79 percent). 

• Grantees often were more likely than nongrantees to provide new or expanded library services. 

These expanded services include library staff members assisting with research projects (42 

percent versus 24 percent, respectively), working on curriculum issues (40 percent versus 23 

percent), participating in team meetings (36 percent versus 23 percent), coordinating 

professional development on technology (42 percent versus 24 percent), and providing 

instruction on information skills (52 percent versus 36 percent). Some other changes 

specifically relating to reading/English are working with classroom teachers on selecting 

resources (49 percent versus 33 percent), holding family literacy nights (38 percent versus 

13 percent), and holding after-school programs that offer an orientation to the library (34 

percent versus 8 percent). 

Summary of Findings: How Are Funds Used (e.g., to Buy Books, Improve Technology, Increase 

Library Hours, or Provide Professional Development for Library and Reading Staff Members, 

etc.)? 

In 2005–06, program funds were spent as follows: 57 percent on resources, including books; 

20 percent on acquiring advanced technology; 5 percent on professional development; 8 percent on 

operating the library media center during nonschool hours; 3 percent on linkages to the Internet and other 

networks; and 8 percent on other areas. 

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

Collaboration and Coordination? 

Grantees were more likely than nongrantees to (a) establish new programs or expand existing 

programs to have library media staff members assist teachers in designing, implementing and evaluating 

research projects for students (42 percent versus 24 percent, respectively); (b) work with the principal 

and/or teachers on curriculum issues (40 percent versus 23 percent); (c) participate in team meetings (36 

percent versus 23 percent); and (d) coordinate training programs about integrating educational technology 

into the curriculum for teachers and other staff members (42 percent versus 24 percent). 
77 

Summary of Findings: How Do Reading Achievement Scores Vary in Schools That Received 

Grants for 1, 2 or 3 Years Compared With Matched Comparison Schools That Have Not Received 

Grants? 

The percentage of students who met or exceeded the proficiency requirements on state reading 

assessments increased by an extra 2.7 percentage points among grantees, a statistically significant 

increase. Some or all of this increase, however, may be associated with other school reform efforts or 

preexisting differences in achievement between LSL and non-LSL schools rather than with LSL 

participation. In addition, increasing the number of books was associated with significant increases in test 

scores. Because of the lack of a true experimental design, these findings cannot support causal inferences 

that attribute observed differences in student reading achievement between LSL and non-LSL schools to 

the LSL program. 
78 
79 

REFERENCES 

Baumbach, Donna J. 2002. Making the grade: The status of school library media centers in the sunshine 

state and how they contribute to student achievement. Spring, Tex.: Hi Willow Research and 

Publishing. 

Baxter, Susan J., and Ann Walker Smalley. 2003, January. The results of the school library media 

program census. Saint Paul, Minn.: Metronet. 

Burgin, Robert, and Pauletta Brown Bracy. 2003. An essential connection: How quality school library 

media programs improve student achievement in North Carolina. Spring, Tex.: Hi Willow Research 

and Publishing. 

Illinois School Library Media Association (ISLMA). 2005, February 18. Powerful libraries make 

powerful learners: The Illinois study. Fact sheet.

http://ns116.webmasters.com/*islma.org/httpdocs/pdf/ILStudyFactSheet.pdf (accessed January 9, 

2009). 

Lance, Keith Curry, Marcia J. Rodney and Christine Hamilton-Pennell. 2000a. How school librarians 

help kids achieve standards: The second Colorado study, executive summary. Colorado Department 

of Education. Spring, Tex.: Hi Willow Research and Publishing. 

———. 2000b. Measuring up to standards: The impact of school library programs and information 

literacy in Pennsylvania schools. Greensburg, Pa.: Pennsylvania Citizens for Better Libraries. 

———. 2002. How school librarians improve outcomes for children: The New Mexico study, executive 

summary. Santa Fe, N. Mex.: New Mexico State Library. 

Lance, Keith Curry, Lynda Wellborn and Christine Hamilton-Pennell. 1992. The impact of school library 

media centers on academic achievement. Denver, Colo.: State Library and Adult Education Office, 

Colorado Department of Education. 

Lonsdale, Michele. 2003. Impact of school libraries on student achievement: A review of the research. 

Melbourne, Australia: Australian Council for Educational Research. 

Rodney, Marcia J., Keith Curry Lance and Christine Hamilton-Pennell. 2003. The impact of Michigan 

school librarians on academic achievement: Kids who have libraries succeed. Lansing, Mich.: 

Library of Michigan. 

Scholastic Library Publishing. 2008. School libraries work! Research Foundation Paper. 

http://librarypublishing.scholastic.com/content/stores/LibraryStore/pages/images/SLW3_2008.pdf 

(accessed January 9, 2009). 

Smith, Ester G. 2006, January. Student learning through Wisconsin school library media centers: Library 

media specialist report. Austin, Tex.: EGS Research & Consulting. 
80 
81 

APPENDIX A 

DETAILED TABLES 
82 
83 

Exhibit A-1 

Percentage of Districts Using Various Methods to Select Schools for Participation in the Grant an

Distribute Grant Money to the Schools, by District Characteristics, 2005–06 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 

 Percentage of all 

districts............................ 14 53 26 22 36 20 9 31 19 

District enrollment size 

Fewer than 500 ............... 59 84 16 16 33 0 0 27 6 

500–1,999 ....................... 8 58 38 26 34 17 4 27 20 

2,000 or more.................. 0 53 26 14 31 12 13 28 30 

Urbanicity 

City.................................. 17 44 0 29 50 42 14 47 6 

Urban fringe.................... 0 56 28 28 44 12 16 24 29 

Town ............................... 8 66 34 26 34 17 0 32 30 Rural................................ 18 51 33 16 30 13 9 26 19 

Region 

Northeast......................... 23 31 35 31 54 45 7 40 21 Southeast......................... 0 60 29 23 35 17 6 24 17 

Central............................. 18 56 11 11 22 11 11 64 0 

West ................................ 16 59 24 21 34 12 13 19 27 

Amount of grant 

Up to $100,000 ............... 36 57 15 0 14 0 14 38 9 

$101,000–$200,000 ........ 15 46 44 28 54 14 11 20 16 More than $200,000........ 7 56 17 23 30 27 8 37 24 

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

Source: Second evaluation, district performance report questions 1 and 14.
84 

Exhibit A-2 

Percentage of Districts Using Various Personnel to Decide Which Schools 

to Serve, by District Characteristics, 2005–06 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 

 

 Percentage of all 

districts ........................... 52 40 82 77 84 43 47 35 32 

 

District enrollment size 

Fewer than 500............... 46 40 81 81 80 74 81 53 47 

500–1,999....................... 31 28 93 77 89 42 54 39 19 

2,000 or more ................. 62 57 79 81 87 37 33 29 33 

 

Urbanicity 

City................................. 70 35 66 65 72 30 42 42 28 

Urban fringe ................... 58 55 84 100 84 43 43 43 28 

Town .............................. 54 39 77 69 85 31 23 15 38 

Rural............................... 42 40 89 79 89 52 57 37 31 

 

Region 

Northeast ........................ 49 49 74 79 73 36 36 30 40 

Southeast ........................ 53 48 88 77 94 46 40 28 29 

Central............................ 18 18 82 64 82 55 64 36 27 

West................................ 65 40 83 81 86 41 50 41 30 

 

Amount of grant 

Up to $100,000............... 46 27 55 91 100 63 63 36 28 

$101,000 to $200,000 .... 44 40 83 68 79 31 46 34 41 

More than $200,000....... 58 45 88 78 83 45 42 35 27 

Source: Second evaluation, district performance report question 2. 
85 

Exhibit A-3 

Percentage of Districts Using Various Personnel to Decide How the Grant Funds Should be Spent, 

by District Characteristics, 2005–06 School Year 

District Characteristic 

District 

School 

Library 

Coordinator 

Reading 

Curriculum 

Coordinator 

Superintendent Principal(s) 

School 

Library 

Media 

Specialists 

Reading 

Specialists 

Classroom 

Teachers 

Parents Other 

 

 Percentage of all 

districts ....................... 54 45 54 73 95 60 82 45 48 

 

District enrollment size 

Fewer than 500........... 46 40 73 86 94 68 87 47 46 

500–1,999................... 42 39 66 84 92 70 93 43 46 

2,000 or more ............. 62 56 41 69 100 54 81 52 51 

 

Urbanicity 

City............................. 52 35 36 48 88 47 53 30 52 

Urban fringe ............... 58 39 55 100 100 56 100 39 73 

Town .......................... 54 62 45 68 92 62 92 31 46 

Rural........................... 54 45 65 79 97 67 87 58 42 

 

Region 

Northeast .................... 44 54 36 62 95 73 74 37 58 

Southeast .................... 58 52 47 64 100 58 82 57 53 

Central........................ 18 36 55 73 91 73 91 45 36 

West............................ 71 40 69 84 94 51 84 43 44 

 

Amount of grant 

Up to $100,000........... 37 27 36 62 100 64 73 37 45 

$101,000 to 

$200,000..................... 37 44 47 76 92 47 85 52 60 

More than $200,000... 70 51 64 74 95 68 83 43 42 

Source: Second evaluation, district performance report question 13. 
86 

Exhibit A-4 

Percentage of Districts Using Various Personnel to Decide Which Schools to Serve and How Grant 

Funds Should be Spent, by Personnel Type, 2003–04, 2004–05, and 2005–06 School Years 

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

2003–04 2004–05 2005–06 2003–04 2004–05 2005–06 

 

District school library coordinator .................................. 69 57 52 60 69 54 

Reading curriculum coordinator...................................... 44 51 40 36 47 45 

Superintendent(s)............................................................. 75 78 82 56 66 54 

Principal(s)....................................................................... 72 65 77 72 70 73 

School librarians.............................................................. 89 76 84 94 93 95 

Reading specialists .......................................................... 31 36 43 45 54 60 

Classroom teachers.......................................................... 39 36 47 90 73 82 

Parents 23 29 35 39 52 45 

Other 30 24 32 26 35 48 

Source: First and second evaluations, district performance report questions 2 and 13. 
87 

Exhibit A-5 

Percentage of Grant Funding Spent by Category, 

by District Characteristics, 2005–06 School Year 

District Characteristic 

Acquisition of 

Advanced 

Technology 

Acquisition of 

All Other 

Resources 

Linkage to 

Internet and 

Other 

Networks 

Professional 

Development 

Operating 

Center in 

Nonschool 

Hours 

Other 

 

 Percentage of all districts............... 20 57 3 5 8 8 

 

District enrollment size 

Fewer than 500............................... 20 56 4 3 5 12 

500–1,999....................................... 26 45 4 5 11 9 

2,000 or more ................................. 19 60 3 3 8 6 

 

Urbanicity 

City................................................. 6 73 1 6 8 6 

Urban fringe ................................... 20 64 1 5 7 4 

Town .............................................. 25 52 6 4 5 9 

Rural............................................... 25 49 4 4 9 9 

 

Region 

Northeast ........................................ 14 68 1 6 6 5 

Southeast ........................................ 20 56 5 2 10 7 

Central............................................ 19 56 1 3 12 10 

West................................................ 23 52 4 6 6 9 

 

Amount of grant 

Up to $100,000..................... 21 60 2 4 10 4 

$101,000 to $200,000 .......... 24 56 2 3 8 7 

More than $200,000 ............. 18 57 4 5 8 8 

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

Source: Second evaluation, district performance report question 12. 
88 

Exhibit A-6 

Total Grant Funding and Amount and Percent of Funding Spent, by Category, 

2004–05 and 2005–06 School Years 

2004–05 2005–06 

Spending Category Amount Percentage Amount Percentage 

 

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

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

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

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

Professional development...................................................... 690,917 4 816,315 5 

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

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

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

Source: Second evaluation, district performance report question 12. 
89 

Exhibit A-7 

Mean Expenditures in School Libraries and Percentage Change of Those Expenditures 

Between the 2004–05 and 2005–06 School Years, by School Characteristics 

Materials Such as Books and 

Subscriptions 

Computer Hardware, Other Than 

Communications Equipment Audiovisual Equipment 

School Characteristic 

2004–05 2005–06 Percentage Changeb 2004–05 2005–06 Percentage change2 2004–05 2005–06 Percentage change2 200

 Mean of all schools ................... 7,332.4 8,681.6 18 1,861.8 1,976.6 6 537.6 710.4 32 9,4

Nongrantees........................................ 7,315.2 8,085.0 11 1,871.3 1,837.6 -2 525.7 672.7 28 9,4Grantees 7,834.6 26,007.5* 232 1,595.4 5,959.3* 274 872.5* 1,820.8 109 10,4

Received grant for two or more years 9,467.6 24,367.0 157 2,581.0 4,970.5 93 290.5 907.1 212 13,4School enrollment size 

400 or fewer .............................. 5,559.5 22,269.8 301 847.3 5,636.2 565 350.6 1,316.4 275 6,6

401–700..................................... 9,399.7 27,082.4 188 2,004.0 5,137.8 156 649.1 1,428.2 120 12,3More than 700 ........................... 11,513.5 35,641.7 210 3,094.4 9,319.8 201 3,362.5 4,740.3 41 18,2

School level 

Elementary ................................ 7,026.2 24,285.5 246 1,452.7 4,858.1 234 303.0 1,324.5 337 8,7

Middle/junior high .................... 9,219.9 31,956.9 247 1,548.0 8,293.3 436 3,818.6 4,626.6 21 14,6High school/other...................... 10,397.4 29,589.2 185 2,275.6 9,293.6 308 1,441.4 2,066.0 43 14,7

Urbanicity 

City 7,435.7 22,090.5 197 1,649.3 3,242.9 97 1,235.0 1,218.5 -1 10,4Urban fringe .............................. 7,356.6 24,006.0 226 1,770.3 3,854.6 118 263.7 1,446.0 448 9,8

Town.......................................... 8,327.0 27,492.2 230 2,266.9 7,650.2 237 445.4 1,640.9 268 11,0Rural 8,276.7 30,588.0 270 1,148.9 9,121.4 694 978.8 2,707.0 177 10,3

Free/reduced-price lunch eligibility 

Less than 50 percent.................. 12,187.2 24,661.8 102 1,854.1 5,510.5 197 2,317.2 1,811.1 -22 16,7

50 percent or more .................... 6,385.0 26,481.2 315 1,501.2 6,125.9 308 351.2 1,824.4 419 8,1

Total expenditures per student 

$12.00 or less............................. 2,661.2 28,202.2 960 28.7 5,928.4 1,020 83.5 1,599.8 1816 2,7

$12.01–$20.00........................... 6,122.9 26,694.5 336 1,287.7 4,596.5 257 398.9 1,901.2 377 8,1More than $20.00 ...................... 14,975.0 23,527.1 57 3,784.6 7,001.6 85 2,211.5 2,168.8 -2 21,3

Total FTE staff 

1.25 or less................................. 6,439.3 25,855.3 302 1,153.3 6,211.0 439 372.0 1,906.6 413 8,0

1.26–1.75................................... 8,997.0 22,150.3 146 2,250.9 4,116.6 83 562.2 779.6 39 12,1More than 1.75 .......................... 10,862.0 31,675.0 192 2,194.4 7,513.7 242 2,955.4 2,933.9 -1 16,3

FTE = full-time equivalent. Note: The asterisks (*) indicate that there is a statistically significant difference (i.e., p-value ≤ .05) between grantee and nongrantee school libraries. 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 totals were calculabStatistical significance was not calculated for percentage change. 

Source: Second evaluation, school library media center survey questions 33, 34, and 35. 
90 

Exhibit A-8 

Mean Expenditures for All Materials in the 2004–05 and 2005–06 School Years and Distributio

of 2005–06 Expenditures Among Selected Materials, by School Characteristics 

Distribution of 2005–06 Expenditures (Percentage of T

School Characteristic Total in 2004–05 Total in 2005–06 Books Video Materials CD-ROM Titles Print or Microform 

Subscriptions 

S

 Mean of all schools ............................ 7,332.4 8,681.6 69.3 6.7 0.8 8.5 Nongrantees................................................. 7,315.2 8,085.0 68.9 6.8* 0.8 8.7* 

Grantees 7,834.6 26,007.5* 80.2* 3.4 1.3* 3.0 

Received grant for two or more years .... 9,467.6 24,367.0 84.5 2.6 1.2 1.5 

School enrollment size 

400 or fewer ....................................... 5,559.5 22,269.8 77.7 3.0 1.2 2.9 

401–700.............................................. 9,399.7 27,082.4 82.4 3.9 0.6 3.5 

More than 700 .................................... 11,513.5 35,641.7 81.9 3.2 3.6 1.7 

School level 

Elementary ......................................... 7,026.2 24,285.5 83.2 3.0 1.0 2.8 

Middle/junior high ............................. 9,219.9 31,956.9 72.7 6.4 3.0 3.4 

High school/combined/other.............. 10,397.4 29,589.2 73.3 3.3 1.3 3.3 

Urbanicity 

City 7,435.7 22,090.5 86.6 2.5 0.5 4.0 Urban fringe ....................................... 7,356.6 24,006.0 85.3 4.0 0.3 1.7 

Town................................................... 8,327.0 27,492.2 82.0 4.8 0.5 2.0 

Rural 8,276.7 30,588.0 70.9 3.4 2.8 3.1 

Free/reduced-price lunch eligibility 

Less than 50 percent........................... 12,187.2 24,661.8 79.1 3.0 1.3 2.8 

50 percent or more ............................. 6,385.0 26,481.2 80.7 3.6 1.3 3.1 

Total expenditures per student 

$12.00 or less......................................... 2,661.2 28,202.2 80.0 2.8 1.6 4.0 

$12.01–$20.00....................................... 6,122.9 26,694.5 78.6 4.1 1.1 1.2 

More than $20.00 .................................. 14,975.0 23,527.1 80.6 3.9 1.0 2.9 

Total FTE staff 

1.25 or less............................................. 6,439.3 25,855.3 77.7 3.4 1.7 3.1 

1.26–1.75............................................... 8,997.0 22,150.3 86.3 4.0 0.8 1.4 

More than 1.75 ...................................... 10,862.0 31,675.0 80.6 2.8 0.3 4.6 

FTE = full-time equivalent. Note: The asterisks (*) indicate that there is a statistically significant difference (i.e., p-value ≤ .05) between grantee and nongrantee school libraries. Percentages may no

and incomplete data for some schools. Source: Second evaluation, school library media center survey questions 32 and 33.
91 

Exhibit A-9 

Percentage of School Libraries That Conducted a Needs Assessment in the Last Two Years, and Perc

Those Libraries That Identified Particular Needs, by School Characteristics, Fall 2006 

Percentage 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

Profe

Devel

 Percentage of all schools.................... 35 34 51 86 41 34 71 32 46 5

Nongrantees................................................. 34 33 51 85 40 33 70 33 46 5Grantees 51* 55* 51 95* 64* 51* 80 29 54 7

Received grant for two or more years .... 45 45 29 86 58 38 71 37 38 3School enrollment size 

400 or fewer ....................................... 49 53 44 96 63 52 77 20 58 7

401–700.............................................. 49 55 54 98 71 48 83 33 53 7

More than 700 .................................... 63 62 62 83 52 59 76 46 45 7

School level 

Elementary ......................................... 47 62 57 96 73 54 78 30 61 7Middle/junior high ............................. 62 35 32 86 48 38 75 12 38 6High school/combined/other.............. 59 46 42 97 46 51 87 38 41 7

Urbanicity 

City 38 67 68 92 70 58 84 36 70 8Urban fringe ....................................... 64 45 59 92 63 49 82 23 55 6Town................................................... 64 34 39 91 54 38 71 30 28 7Rural 53 63 39 100 66 54 79 26 54 7

Free/reduced-price lunch eligibility 

Less than 50 percent........................... 61 53 42 92 56 38 81 22 51 750 percent or more ............................. 47 56 55 96 68 57 79 32 56 7

Total expenditures per student 

$12.00 or less...................................... 50 55 40 97 62 50 70 37 56 6

$12.01–$20.00.................................... 60 52 54 89 65 51 89 25 53 8

More than $20.00 ............................... 50 58 62 94 68 53 87 23 51 8

Total FTE staff 

1.25 or less.......................................... 51 55 50 95 54 47 81 30 49 71.26 –1.75........................................... 58 66 56 98 86 66 82 16 72 8More than 1.75 ................................... 43 38 47 89 68 44 69 46 39 6

FTE = full-time equivalent. Note: The asterisks (*) indicate that there is a statistically significant difference (i.e., p-value ≤ .05) between grantee and nongrantee school libraries. Source: Second evaluation, school library media center survey questions 39 and 40. 
92 

Exhibit A-10 

Percentage of School Libraries That Made Changes as the Result of a Needs Assessment 

in the Last Two Years, by School Characteristics, Fall 2006 

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

 Percentage of all schools .................... 10 42 79 22 13 50 28 31 42 Nongrantees................................................. 10 42 78 21 13 49 28 31 41 

Grantees 21* 45 92* 39* 13 60 22 28 68* 

Received grant for two or more years..... 8 17 77 23 0 53 25 16 23 School enrollment size 

400 or fewer........................................ 27 39 95 44 14 65 16 33 73 

401–700 .............................................. 16 51 95 34 12 63 28 21 64 

More than 700..................................... 19 48 78 37 10 41 25 29 66 

School level 

Elementary.......................................... 23 52 94 42 13 57 22 28 71 Middle/junior high.............................. 8 15 80 34 8 60 9 22 49 High school/combined/other .............. 25 39 94 34 14 70 28 31 71 

Urbanicity 

City 19 60 87 46 8 49 34 37 75 Urban fringe........................................ 5 53 85 27 18 45 13 21 59 Town................................................... 13 34 94 34 9 63 19 10 71 Rural 38 34 99 44 15 75 19 34 67 

Free/reduced-price lunch eligibility 

Less than 50 percent........................... 22 29 88 28 12 65 25 24 64 50 percent or more.............................. 21 52 94 45 13 58 20 29 70 

Total expenditures per student 

$12.00 or less...................................... 28 35 93 39 20 61 30 34 57 

$12.01–$20.00 .................................... 19 47 90 44 11 61 21 31 76 More than $20.00 ............................... 14 59 94 40 7 63 15 18 80 

Total FTE staff 

1.25 or less.......................................... 28 42 93 35 14 65 24 34 64 1.26–1.75 ............................................ 11 53 95 56 14 56 15 18 87 

More than 1.75.................................... 16 41 83 27 7 50 25 21 52 

FTE = full-time equivalent. Note: The asterisks (*) indicate that there is a statistically significant difference (i.e., p-value ≤ .05) between grantee and nongrantee school libraries. Source: Second evaluation, school library media center survey question 40.
93 

Exhibit A-11 

Percentage of School Libraries’ Holdings That Support the Instructional Program in English, 

by Degree of Adequacy, Grantee Status and Type of Material, Spring 2005 and 2006 

Excellent Adequate Inadequate Grantee Status and Type of Material Spring 2005 Spring 2006 Spring 2005 Spring 2006 Spring 2005 Spring 2006 

Grantee 

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

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

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

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

 

Nongrantee 

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

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

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

Computer software .................................... 8* 10 47* 47 44 43* 

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

libraries. Percentages may not add to 100 because of rounding. 

Source: Second evaluation, school library media center survey question 20. 
94 

Exhibit A-12 

Percentage of School Libraries Reporting That Their Holdings in Supporting the Instructional Program 

Were Adequate or Excellent, by School Characteristics, Spring 2005 and 2006 

Overall Reading/ 

English Collection Print Materials Video/Audiovisual Materials 

School Characteristic 

Spring 2005 Spring 2006 Spring 2005 Spring 2006 Spring 2005 Spring 2006 S

 Percentage of all schools............................. 78 84 76 80 62 67 Nongrantees.......................................................... 78* 84 77* 79 63* 67 Grantees 66 90* 65 89* 48 65 

Received grant for two or more years.............. 74 78 73 78 46 49 

School enrollment size 

400 or fewer................................................. 64 91 61 90 42 63 

401–700 ....................................................... 69 92 70 92 54 67 More than 700.............................................. 62 83 62 80 54 67 

School level 

Elementary................................................... 71 91 68 90 50 65 Middle/junior high....................................... 59 95 66 95 46 67 High school/combined/other ....................... 49 83 52 83 40 62 

Urbanicity 

City 72 92 72 91 56 63 Urban fringe................................................. 69 93 64 94 45 67 Town............................................................ 74 89 74 91 63 76 Rural 54 88 54 85 36 61 

Free/reduced-price lunch eligibility 

Less than 50 percent.................................... 56 90 59 89 45 65 50 percent or more....................................... 69 90 67 89 50 65 

Total expenditures per student 

$12.00 or less............................................... 63 90 59 86 39 56 $12.01–$20.00 ............................................. 68 93 71 92 64 80 More than $20.00 ........................................ 67 90 66 93 50 68 

Total FTE staff 

1.25 or less................................................... 57 89 61 87 38 56 1.26–1.75 ..................................................... 79 96 64 96 65 83 More than 1.75............................................. 76 86 78 89 59 72 

FTE = full-time equivalent. Note: The asterisks (*) indicate that there is a statistically significant difference (i.e., p-value ≤ .05) between grantee and nongrantee school libraries. Source: Second evaluation, school library media center survey question 20.
95 

Exhibit A-13 

Percentage of School Libraries Reporting the Adequacy of Their Resources in Specified Areas, 

by Grantee Status, Spring 2005 and 2006 

Grantee Status and Resource Excellent Adequate Inadequate Not Applicable 

Spring 2005 

Grantee 

English as a second language ................................. 2 30 47 21 

Multicultural materials ........................................... 10 51 37* 2 

High interest–low vocabulary ................................ 9 48 41* 2 

Picture books/easy readers ..................................... 17 51 26* 5 

Proprietary online resources/subscriptions ............ 13 36 43* 8 

 

Nongrantee 

English as a second language ................................. 2 34 43 21 

Multicultural materials ........................................... 13 57 26 4 

High interest–low vocabulary ................................ 18* 56* 25 1 

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

Proprietary online resources/subscriptions ............ 20* 41 31 9 

 

Spring 2006 

Grantee 

English as a second language ................................. 9* 41 29 21 

Multicultural materials ........................................... 27* 58 14 1 

High interest–low vocabulary ................................ 29* 57 13 1* 

Picture books/easy readers ..................................... 46* 42 7 4 

Proprietary online resources/subscriptions ............ 26 46 20 7 

 

Nongrantee 

English as a second language ................................. 2 39 38* 21 

Multicultural materials ........................................... 14 62 21* 3 

High interest–low vocabulary ................................ 22 57 21* 0 

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

Proprietary online resources/subscriptions ............ 22 42 28* 8 

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

libraries. Percentages may not add to 100 because of rounding. 

Source: Second evaluation, school library media center survey question 21. 
96 

Exhibit A-14 

Percentage of School Libraries Reporting That Their Resources Were Excellent or Adequate in Specif

by School Characteristics, Spring 2005 and 2006 

English as a Second 

Language Multicultural Materials High Interest–Low Vocabulary Picture Books/Easy Readers 

School Characteristic 

2005 2006 2005 2006 2005 2006 2005 2006 

 Percentage of all schools ........... 36 42 70 76 73 79 72 79 

Nongrantees........................................ 36 41 70* 76 74* 79 72 79 Grantees 32 49* 61 85* 57 86* 68 88* 

Received grant for two or more years 24 27 60 79 68 83 73 89 School enrollment size 

400 or fewer............................... 27 41 62 84 53 84 67 89 

401–700 ..................................... 34 53 62 88 60 87 73 91 More than 700............................ 44 69 54 77 60 91 59 79 

School level 

Elementary................................. 35 52 64 87 57 86 77 95 Middle/junior high..................... 30 48 63 89 59 87 44 72 High school/combined/other ..... 23 39 46 71 54 87 48 70 

Urbanicity 

City 45 65 67 86 62 81 79 91 Urban fringe............................... 39 61 62 86 64 91 59 89 Town.......................................... 35 54 55 86 53 82 66 82 Rural 14 25 56 82 50 91 63 88 

Free/reduced-price lunch 

eligibility 

Less than 50 percent.................. 20 33 46 81 49 85 61 84 50 percent or more..................... 36 55 66 86 60 87 71 90 

Total expenditures per student 

$12.00 or less............................. 27 39 61 86 52 84 65 89 

$12.01–$20.00 ........................... 31 56 59 86 57 84 72 85 More than $20.00 ...................... 35 59 60 84 60 89 70 88 

Total FTE staff 

1.25 or less................................. 28 43 59 83 52 82 67 86 1.26–1.75 ................................... 41 65 64 90 64 91 70 94 

More than 1.75........................... 35 50 62 83 61 94 72 91 

FTE = full-time equivalent. Note: The asterisks (*) indicate that there is a statistically significant difference (i.e., p-value ≤ .05) between grantee and nongrantee school libraries. Percentages are ba

specified area was applicable to their school. Source: Second evaluation, school library media center survey question 21. 
97 

Exhibit A-15 

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

Most Recent World Atlas 

(Percentage of Schools) 

Most Recent General Encyclopedia 

School Characteristic (Percentage of Schools) 

2005 or 2006 2003 or 2004 2002 or earlier 2005 or 2006 2003 or 2004 2002 or earlier 

Me

C

 Percentage of all schools .................... 42 20 39 46 20 34 Nongrantees................................................. 41 20 39 45 20 35* 

Grantees 46 18 35 63* 16 21 

Received grant for two or more years..... 36 19 46 59 19 22 School enrollment size 

400 or fewer........................................ 49 13 38 63 15 22 401–700 .............................................. 43 24 34 61 18 21 

More than 700..................................... 50 19 30 70 14 16 

School level 

Elementary.......................................... 45 18 37 60 19 21 

Middle/junior high.............................. 47 15 38 55 12 33 

High school/combined/other .............. 56 12 32 69 9 22 

Urbanicity 

City 49 16 35 65 17 18 Urban fringe........................................ 48 22 30 65 16 19 

Town................................................... 30 29 42 49 23 28 Rural 50 15 35 68 12 20 

Free/reduced-price lunch eligibility 

Less than 50 percent........................... 48 18 34 60 17 24 

50 percent or more.............................. 46 18 36 65 16 19 

Total expenditures per student 

$12.00 or less...................................... 47 20 33 64 13 23 

$12.01–$20.00 .................................... 53 18 29 65 17 18 More than $20.00 ............................... 46 17 37 63 18 19 

Total FTE staff 

1.25 or less.......................................... 47 15 38 62 18 20 1.26–1.75 ............................................ 43 28 29 63 14 23 

More than 1.75.................................... 49 16 34 67 14 19 

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

rounding. Source: Second evaluation, school library media center survey questions 22, 23, and 24. 
98 

Exhibit A-16 

Percentage of Schools Indicating the Importance of Various Factors in Their Library’s 

Choice of Books to Add During the 2005–06 School Year, by Grantee Status 

Grantee Status and Factor for Choosing Books Very 

Important 

Somewhat 

Important 

Not 

Important 

Not Used/ 

Not Applicable 

Grantees 

Books had won awards.............................................. 58 35 3 3 

Lost books replaced................................................... 30 56 9* 6 

Consultation with classroom teachers....................... 77 19 1 3 

Consultation with reading specialist ......................... 42* 21 3 34 

Categories that become quickly outdated ................. 49* 29 10 12 

Strengthen particular subject areas............................ 87* 10 1 3 

Other .......................................................................... 33 4 1* 62 

 

Nongrantees 

Books had won awards.............................................. 64 31 2 4 

Lost books replaced................................................... 37* 53 4 6 

Consultation with classroom teachers....................... 75 19 3 4 

Consultation with reading specialist ......................... 34 19 5 43* 

Categories that become quickly outdated ................. 37 35 12 16 

Strengthen particular subject areas............................ 81 13 3 2 

Other .......................................................................... 34 4 0 62 

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

libraries. Percentages may not add to 100 because of rounding. 

Source: Second evaluation, school library media center survey question 25. 
99 

Exhibit A-17 

Percentage of School Libraries Reporting That Various Factors Were Very or Somewhat 

Important When Selecting Books to Add to the Collection During the 2005–06 School Year, by 

School Characteristics 

School Characteristic 

Books Had 

Won 

Awards 

Lost Books 

Replaced 

Consultation 

With 

Classroom 

Teachers 

Consultation 

With 

Reading 

Specialist 

Categories 

That 

Become 

Quickly 

Outdated 

Strengthen 

Particular 

Subject 

Areas 

Other 

 

 Percentage of all schools ............... 94 91 93 53 72 95 38 

 

Nongrantees............................................ 94 91* 93 52 72 94 38 

Grantees 93 85 96 63* 78* 97 37 

Received grant for two or more 

years 91 79 88 64 74 97 26 

 

School enrollment size 

400 or fewer................................... 93 86 95 60 77 96 37 

401–700 ......................................... 93 84 97 65 80 97 35 

More than 700................................ 96 90 97 69 77 98 42 

 

School level 

Elementary..................................... 93 86 95 66 78 97 37 

Middle/junior high......................... 98 90 100 65 77 98 30 

High school/combined/other ......... 94 78 98 51 83 97 39 

 

Urbanicity 

City 92 81 93 60 68 96 40 

Urban fringe................................... 93 85 100 66 94 97 35 

Town.............................................. 94 87 98 56 75 98 33 

Rural 95 90 96 68 83 97 36 

 

Free/reduced-price lunch eligibility 

Less than 50 percent...................... 94 92 100 62 80 99 44 

50 percent or more......................... 93 83 94 64 78 96 34 

 

Total expenditures per student 

$12.00 or less................................. 92 79 95 60 70 97 39 

$12.01–$20.00 ............................... 98 94 100 62 85 100 36 

More than $20.00 .......................... 97 93 98 67 87 99 37 

 

Total FTE staff 

1.25 or less..................................... 92 83 94 61 76 96 39 

1.26–1.75 ....................................... 99 94 100 63 85 99 36 

More than 1.75............................... 93 82 98 70 78 97 32 

FTE = full-time equivalent. 

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

libraries. 

Source: Second evaluation, school library media center survey question 25. 
100 

Exhibit A-18 

Percentage of School Libraries Reporting That Various Electronic Services Were Available 

on Different Kinds of Networks, by Grantee Status, Fall 2006 

Grantee Status and 

Electronic Service 

Stand-Alone 

Computer Library LAN Buildingwide LAN 

District WAN Not Available 

 

Grantee 

Automated catalogs ........................ 10 21 28 46 7 

CD-ROMs....................................... 43* 13 22 15 20 

Internet access................................. 6 9 21 81* 0 

E-mail ............................................. 4 8 16 83* 3 

Electronic full-text periodicals ....... 2 7 11 49 34 

 

Nongrantee 

Automated catalogs ........................ 10 25 26 40 10 

CD-ROMs....................................... 35 15 19 17 23 

Internet access................................. 6 14* 22 73 3* 

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

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

LAN = local area network. 

WAN = wide area network. 

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

libraries. 

Source: Second evaluation, school library media center survey question 27. 
101 

Exhibit A-19 

Percentage of School Libraries Reporting That Various Electronic Services Were Networked 

to Locations Outside of the Library, by School Characteristics, Fall 2006 

School Characteristic 

Automated 

Catalog 

CD-ROMs Internet Access E-mail 

Electronic FullText Periodicals 

 

 Percentage of all schools .................... 63 34 87 84 57 

 

Nongrantees................................................. 62 34 87 84 57 

Grantees 69* 35 93* 91* 57 

Received grant for two or more years..... 57 34 92 86 38 

 

School enrollment size 

400 or fewer........................................ 71 36 95 93 57 

401–700 .............................................. 67 36 92 89 60 

More than 700..................................... 69 29 91 91 48 

 

School level 

Elementary.......................................... 70 37 92 90 53 

Middle/junior high.............................. 72 39 95 95 66 

High school/combined/other .............. 64 27 96 93 67 

Urbanicity 

City 66 40 91 90 58 

Urban fringe........................................ 72 29 97 95 56 

Town................................................... 72 31 93 93 59 

Rural 69 35 94 90 55 

 

Free/reduced-price lunch eligibility 

Less than 50 percent........................... 69 34 90 89 67 

50 percent or more.............................. 69 36 94 92 53 

Total expenditures per student 

$12.00 or less...................................... 68 37 93 92 56 

$12.01–$20.00 .................................... 69 32 92 92 54 

More than $20.00 ............................... 74 34 96 92 63 

 

Total FTE staff 

1.25 or less.......................................... 61 33 92 89 52 

1.26–1.75 ............................................ 80 34 94 95 63 

More than 1.75.................................... 81 43 96 94 65 

FTE = full-time equivalent. 

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

libraries. 

Source: Second evaluation, school library media center survey question 27. 
102 

Exhibit A-20 

Percentage of School Libraries With Computer Access to Catalogs of Other Libraries, 

by Type of Library and School Characteristics, Fall 2006 

School Characteristic Public Library Community 

College Library 

College or 

University 

Library 

Other School 

Libraries in 

District 

School Libraries 

Outside District 

 

 Percentage of all schools .................. 58 38 43 47 24 

 

Nongrantees............................................... 58 38 42 47 24 

Grantees 64* 47* 53* 61* 33* 

Received grant for two or more years... 43 32 34 43 11 

 

School enrollment size 

400 or fewer...................................... 65 52 59 56 39 

401–700 ............................................ 60 38 43 61 23 

More than 700................................... 73 55 62 80 42 

 

School level 

Elementary........................................ 69 46 51 63 29 

Middle/junior high............................ 45 39 41 65 38 

High school/combined/other ............ 56 56 70 47 46 

Urbanicity 

City 81 38 42 65 30 

Urban fringe...................................... 66 63 55 62 31 

Town................................................. 58 38 52 77 35 

Rural 48 52 64 49 36 

 

Free/reduced-price lunch eligibility 

Less than 50 percent......................... 69 49 57 57 42 

50 percent or more............................ 63 46 52 62 29 

Total expenditures per student 

$12.00 or less.................................... 67 40 43 56 37 

$12.01–$20.00 .................................. 58 42 57 61 30 

More than $20.00 ............................. 65 57 65 69 31 

 

Total FTE staff 

1.25 or less........................................ 61 44 47 51 29 

1.26–1.75 .......................................... 84 59 70 82 37 

More than 1.75.................................. 51 39 50 66 37 

FTE = full-time equivalent. 

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

libraries. 

Source: Second evaluation, school library media center survey question 28. 
103 

Exhibit A-21 

Percentage of School Libraries That Participated in Cooperative Activities With Local Public 

Libraries and the Ways They Participated in the Last 12 Months, by School Characteristics, 

Fall 2006 

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 

 

 Percentage of all schools ...... 52 70 68 46 43 36 41 

 

Nongrantees................................... 51 70 68 46 43 36 41 

Grantees 59* 71 72 47 48 43 39 

Received grant for two or 

more years ................................. 46 83 78 63 67 27 53 

 

School enrollment size 

400 or fewer.......................... 58 76 74 49 47 36 38 

401–700 ................................ 59 62 62 45 50 49 46 

More than 700....................... 62 77 90 46 43 47 26 

 

School level 

Elementary............................ 61 71 69 42 46 43 41 

Middle/junior high................ 60 61 60 67 49 41 47 

High school/combined/ 

other.................................. 48 75 94 56 58 42 23 

 

Urbanicity 

City 63 66 71 34 57 55 38 

Urban fringe.......................... 60 62 60 46 22 40 29 

Town..................................... 64 75 83 67 47 25 45 

Rural 52 79 72 53 50 38 42 

 

Free/reduced-price lunch 

 eligibility 

Less than 50 percent............. 62 74 76 47 57 54 42 

50 percent or more................ 58 69 70 47 44 39 38 

 

Total expenditures per student 

$12.00 or less........................ 62 67 70 58 51 30 42 

$12.01–$20.00 ...................... 67 75 81 48 55 39 44 

More than $20.00 ................. 57 74 73 35 41 59 32 

 

Total FTE staff 

1.25 or less............................ 57 70 68 51 59 46 43 

1.26–1.75 .............................. 69 80 77 32 28 50 29 

More than 1.75...................... 53 60 74 58 43 20 42 

FTE = full-time equivalent. 

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

libraries. 

Source: Second evaluation, school library media center survey questions 29, 30, and 31. 
104 

Exhibit A-22 

Mean Length of Time the School Library Was Open, 

by School Characteristics, Spring 2005 and 2006 

Typical Full Week of School 

(Mean Number of Hours) 

Summer Vacation 

(Mean Number of Days) School Characteristic 

Spring 2005 Spring 2006 Percentage 

Changea 

Summer 

2005 

Summer 

2006 

Percentage 

Changea

 

 Mean of all schools........................... 33.9 34.8 3 6.7 6.4 -4 

 

Nongrantees............................................... 34.0* 34.8 2 6.8* 6.4 -6 

Grantees 31.5 34.3 9 2.9 7.7* 166 

Received grant for two or more years... 32.3 32.4 0 4.3 6.3 47 

 

School enrollment size 

400 or fewer...................................... 29.8 33.7 13 2.8 8.7 211 

401–700 ............................................ 32.6 34.4 6 2.1 6.3 200 

More than 700................................... 34.5 36.2 5 5.3 8.7 64 

 

School level 

Elementary........................................ 30.6 33.1 8 2.1 6.8 224 

Middle/junior high............................ 35.6 37.9 6 5.6 9.3 66 

High school/combined/other ............ 32.5 37.0 14 4.3 10.8 151 

 

Urbanicity 

City 29.5 32.0 8 2.8 4.4 57 

Urban fringe...................................... 31.7 33.8 7 2.9 9.6 231 

Town................................................. 34.7 36.6 5 4.4 8.8 100 

Rural 32.1 36.0 12 2.2 10.0 355 

 

Free/reduced-price lunch eligibility 

Less than 50 percent......................... 32.4 34.8 7 3.9 8.1 108 

50 percent or more............................ 31.2 34.2 10 2.5 7.6 204 

 

Total expenditures per student 

$12.00 or less.................................... 27.6 31.4 14 2.0 8.5 325 

$12.01–$20.00 .................................. 35.8 37.7 5 3.1 10.2 229 

More than $20.00 ............................. 34.9 37.4 7 3.8 6.5 71 

 

Total FTE staff 

1.25 or less........................................ 29.2 32.5 11 3.4 7.9 132 

1.26–1.75 .......................................... 35.2 37.4 6 2.1 6.9 229 

More than 1.75.................................. 34.0 36.1 6 2.0 8.4 320 

FTE = full-time equivalent. 

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

libraries. 

a

Statistical significance was not calculated for percentage change. 

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

 
105 

Exhibit A-23 

Access to the School Library During Nonschool Hours, 

by School Characteristics, Spring 2005 and 2006 

Percentage of Schools Providing Access 

Mean Number of Nonschool 

Hours of Access 

School Characteristic 

Both 

Years 2005 Only 2006 Only 

Neither 

Year 

2005 2006 Percentage 

Changea 

 

 Percentage of all schools .................. 53 0 3 43 6.6 6.9 5 

 

Nongrantees............................................... 54* 0 2 44* 6.7* 6.9 3 

Grantees 37 2* 35* 26 3.6 6.8 91 

Received grant for two or more years... 60 10 11 19 7.0 7.4 6 

 

School enrollment size 

400 or fewer...................................... 33 2 39 27 3.3 7.0 110 

401–700 ............................................ 38 2 33 27 3.3 6.2 89 

More than 700................................... 51 2 27 20 5.1 7.8 54 

 

School level 

Elementary........................................ 32 2 37 29 3.0 6.2 103 

Middle/junior high............................ 51 0 28 21 4.5 8.2 81 

High school/combined/other ............ 50 2 31 18 4.9 8.1 66 

 

Urbanicity 

City 28 1 27 45 3.4 6.5 90 

Urban fringe...................................... 28 2 53 18 1.9 5.5 182 

Town................................................. 62 5 26 7 4.9 7.7 59 

Rural 41 2 39 18 3.8 7.3 91 

 

Free/reduced-price lunch eligibility 

Less than 50 percent......................... 49 0 27 24 4.0 6.7 67 

50 percent or more............................ 33 3 37 27 3.4 6.9 103 

 

Total expenditures per student 

$12.00 or less.................................... 22 1 37 39 2.5 6.7 171 

$12.01–$20.00 .................................. 57 3 23 16 4.2 7.3 72 

More than $20.00 ............................. 43 2 42 13 3.6 6.5 79 

 

Total FTE staff 

1.25 or less........................................ 33 2 32 33 3.6 7.1 96 

1.26–1.75 .......................................... 44 1 43 11 2.8 5.8 111 

More than 1.75.................................. 43 2 34 21 4.5 7.5 66 

FTE = full-time equivalent. 

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

libraries. Percentages may not add to 100 because of rounding. 

a

Statistical significance was not calculated for percentage change. 

Source: Second evaluation, school library media center survey questions 5 and 6. 
106 

Exhibit A-24 

Percentage of School Libraries Using Extended Hours for Various Activities 

During the 2005–06 School Year, by School Characteristics 

School Characteristic Specific Programs Open to Loan 

Books 

Book Clubs Other 

 

 Percentage of all schools................................ 33 90 13 59 

 

Nongrantees............................................................. 32 90 13 59 

Grantees 43* 92 18 59 

Received grant for two or more years................. 32 90 17 59 

 

School enrollment size 

400 or fewer.................................................... 47 93 16 56 

401–700 .......................................................... 36 91 17 57 

More than 700................................................. 48 94 25 77 

 

School level 

Elementary...................................................... 40 91 15 57 

Middle/junior high.......................................... 45 93 24 66 

High school/combined/other .......................... 50 98 25 63 

 

Urbanicity 

City 40 86 19 61 

Urban fringe.................................................... 42 94 27 56 

Town............................................................... 38 88 10 61 

Rural 48 98 17 59 

 

Free/reduced-price lunch eligibility 

Less than 50 percent....................................... 51 91 22 67 

50 percent or more.......................................... 40 93 16 57 

 

Total expenditures per student 

$12.00 or less.................................................. 41 90 16 61 

$12.01–$20.00 ................................................ 51 91 19 68 

More than $20.00 ........................................... 43 95 17 59 

 

Total FTE staff 

1.25 or less...................................................... 48 91 18 55 

1.26–1.75 ........................................................ 36 94 17 65 

More than 1.75................................................ 40 94 21 62 

FTE = full-time equivalent. 

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

libraries. 

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

 
107 

Exhibit A-25 

Percentage of School Libraries Reporting Major or Moderate Barriers to Providing Services During Nons

by School Characteristics, Spring 2006 

Availability of Library Staff Transportation for Students Transportation for Parents Availability of Parents 

School Characteristic Major 

Barrier 

Moderate 

Barrier 

Major 

Barrier 

Moderate 

Barrier 

Major 

Barrier 

Moderate 

Barrier 

Major 

Barrier 

Moderate 

Barrier 

 Percentage of all schools ........... 50 17 47 24 26 30 37 35 Nongrantees........................................ 50* 17 47* 24 26* 30 38* 35 

Grantees 42 25* 39 23 20 31 30 37 

Received grant for two or more years 40 22 51 19 43 24 46 27 School enrollment size 

400 or fewer............................... 46 27 43 24 20 30 29 38 

401–700 ..................................... 40 23 36 25 21 31 30 34 

More than 700............................ 33 24 35 11 19 31 34 44 

School level 

Elementary................................. 44 22 39 24 21 30 28 37 Middle/junior high..................... 45 28 35 21 25 19 36 33 High school/combined/other ..... 30 35 42 20 13 43 33 42 

Urbanicity 

City 44 24 31 26 17 35 31 35 Urban fringe............................... 44 28 43 13 19 22 24 43 Town.......................................... 36 25 37 36 19 27 35 41 Rural 41 24 47 18 24 32 29 36 

Free/reduced-price lunch 

eligibility 

Less than 50 percent.................. 45 21 35 21 12 38 27 42 50 percent or more..................... 41 26 41 23 23 28 31 36 

Total expenditures per student 

$12.00 or less............................. 43 23 44 25 24 30 33 38 

$12.01–$20.00 ........................... 34 27 35 24 14 29 24 53 

More than $20.00 ...................... 42 26 37 21 19 33 29 30 

Total FTE staff 

1.25 or less................................. 45 23 41 25 22 29 28 36 1.26–1.75 ................................... 41 30 36 22 20 34 29 45 

More than 1.75........................... 34 27 38 16 16 31 37 33 

FTE = full-time equivalent.Note: The asterisks (*) indicate that there is a statistically significant difference (i.e., p-value ≤ .05) between grantee and nongrantee school libraries. Source: Second evaluation, school library media center survey question 16. 
108 

Exhibit A-26 

Percentage of School Libraries Reporting Barriers to Providing Services During Nonschool Hours, 

by Grantee Status, Spring 2006 

Grantee Status No Barrier Small Barrier Moderate Barrier Major Barrier 

Grantee 

Availability of library staff..................................... 20 13 25* 42 

Transportation for students..................................... 19 19* 23 39 

Transportation for parents ...................................... 23 27 31 20 

Availability of parents ............................................ 10 23* 37 30 

Safety concerns....................................................... 53 20 17 10 

 

Nongrantee 

Availability of library staff..................................... 21 12 17 50* 

Transportation for students..................................... 18 11 24 47* 

Transportation for parents ...................................... 20 23 30 26* 

Availability of parents ............................................ 14 13 35 38* 

Safety concerns....................................................... 51 26* 14 10 

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

libraries. Percentages may not add to 100 because of rounding. 

Source: Second evaluation, school library media center survey question 16. 
109 

Exhibit A-27 

Mean Usage of School Library Resources per Student, 

by School Characteristics, Spring 2005 and 2006 

Number of Visits in a Typical Week Number of Materials Checked Out 

School Characteristic 

Spring 2005 Spring 2006 Percentage 

Changea Spring 2005 Spring 2006 Percentage 

Changea

 

 Mean of all schools........................... 1.2 1.2 0 2.0 1.9 -5 

 

Nongrantees............................................... 1.2 1.2 0 2.0 1.9 -5 

Grantees 1.2 1.4* 17 2.0 2.2 10 

Received grant for two or more years... 1.0 1.8 80 3.0 3.1 3 

 

School enrollment size 

400 or fewer...................................... 1.3 1.5 15 2.3 2.7 17 

401–700 ............................................ 1.1 1.4 27 1.9 2.0 5 

More than 700................................... 1.0 1.1 10 1.0 1.1 10 

 

School level 

Elementary........................................ 1.4 1.6 14 2.4 2.6 8 

Middle/junior high............................ 0.9 1.1 22 0.8 1.0 25 

High school/combined/other ............ 0.8 0.9 13 0.8 0.9 13 

Urbanicity 

City 1.2 1.5 25 1.7 1.6 -6 

Urban fringe...................................... 1.1 1.2 9 2.0 1.9 -5 

Town................................................. 1.3 1.4 8 2.5 3.1 24 

Rural 1.3 1.5 15 2.0 2.5 25 

 

Free/reduced-price lunch eligibility 

Less than 50 percent......................... 1.2 1.3 8 2.3 2.4 4 

50 percent or more............................ 1.2 1.5 25 1.9 2.1 11 

Total expenditures per student 

$12.00 or less.................................... 1.2 1.6 33 2.0 2.1 5 

$12.01–$20.00 .................................. 1.2 1.4 17 1.7 2.3 35 

More than $20.00 ............................. 1.3 1.4 8 2.1 2.3 10 

 

Total FTE staff 

1.25 or less........................................ 1.1 1.4 27 1.6 1.8 13 

1.26–1.75 .......................................... 1.5 1.7 13 2.6 2.8 8 

More than 1.75.................................. 1.2 1.3 8 2.4 2.4 0 

FTE = full-time equivalent. 

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

libraries. 

a

Statistical significance was not calculated for percentage change. 

Source: Second evaluation, school library media center survey questions 1, 2, and 3. 
110 

Exhibit A-28 

Percentage of School Libraries Offering Selected Services and the Frequency of Those Services, 

by Grantee Status, 2005–06 School Year 

Grantee Status and Service Frequency of Services 

Grantees Daily Weekly Monthly Never 

Not 

Applicable 

 

Provide reference assistance to 

 Students........................................................................ 76 17 5 0 2* 

 Teachers ....................................................................... 53 30 13 1 2 

 Administrators.............................................................. 22 18 30 20 10 

Help with sources outside the school............................... 26 20 36 12 7 

 

 Monthly Quarterly Annually Never 

Not 

Applicable 

 

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

Work on curriculum issues............................................... 42* 18 18 14 8 

Participate in team meetings............................................. 52* 18 10 15 5 

Coordinate textbook selection.......................................... 10 5 16 40 30 

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

 

Nongrantees Daily Weekly Monthly Never 

Not 

Applicable 

 

Provide reference assistance to 

 Students........................................................................ 78 16 6 0 1 

 Teachers ....................................................................... 57 29 11 1 2 

 Administrators.............................................................. 18 20 31 16 15* 

Help with sources outside the school............................... 24 24 34 9 9 

 Monthly Quarterly Annually Never 

Not 

Applicable 

 

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

Work on curriculum issues............................................... 29 18 22 18 14* 

Participate in team meetings............................................. 41 20 13 15 12* 

Coordinate textbook selection.......................................... 12 4 18 42 25 

Coordinate professional development on technology...... 7 14 29 29 21* 

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

libraries. Percentages may not add to 100 because of rounding. 

Source: Second evaluation, school library media center survey question 10. 
111 

Exhibit A-29 

Percentage of School Libraries Reporting That They Provide Selected Services, by the Highest Listed Leve

and School Characteristics, 2005–06 School Year 

Provide Services Daily Provide Services Mon

Provide Reference Assistance to 

School Characteristic 

Students Teachers Administrators

Help Use 

Information 

Outside the 

School 

Assist With 

Research 

Projects 

Work on 

Curriculum 

Issues 

Participate in 

Team 

Meetings 

 Percentage of all schools ................................. 78 57 18 25 35 30 41 

Nongrantees.............................................................. 78 57 18 24 35 29 41 

Grantees 76 53 22 26 37 42* 52* 

Received grant for two or more years.................. 81 60 27 34 23 42 52 

School enrollment size 

400 or fewer..................................................... 73 49 21 20 30 38 52 

401–700 ........................................................... 74 53 23 30 39 46 54 

More than 700.................................................. 89 69 24 36 53 46 49 

School level 

Elementary....................................................... 72 53 22 24 34 41 52 Middle/junior high........................................... 85 68 32 37 52 59 49 High school/combined/other ........................... 83 45 15 28 36 35 55 

Urbanicity 

City 79 60 27 27 42 44 55 Urban fringe..................................................... 71 51 29 26 36 33 45 Town................................................................ 75 56 18 28 31 56 56 Rural 74 46 16 24 34 39 51 

Free/reduced-price lunch eligibility 

Less than 50 percent........................................ 84 52 24 20 42 46 62 50 percent or more........................................... 73 54 22 28 35 41 49 

Total expenditures per student 

$12.00 or less................................................... 70 50 23 26 38 40 54 

$12.01–$20.00 ................................................. 80 54 21 27 35 48 58 More than $20.00 ............................................ 83 59 22 27 40 46 48 

Total FTE staff 

1.25 or less....................................................... 77 53 23 27 37 36 49 1.26–1.75 ......................................................... 74 61 20 19 34 46 55 

More than 1.75................................................. 72 47 22 30 39 58 60 

FTE = full-time equivalent. Note: The asterisks (*) indicate that there is a statistically significant difference (i.e., p-value ≤ .05) between grantee and nongrantee school libraries. Source: Second evaluation, school library media center survey question 10. 
112 

Exhibit A-30 

Percentage of School Libraries Indicating Changes in Their Provision of Selected Services, 

by Grantee Status and Type of Service, 2005–06 School Year 

Grantees Nongrantees 

Type of Service New in 

2005–06 

Expanded 

in 2005–06 No Change 

Decreased 

or 

Eliminated 

in 2005–06 

Not 

Performed 

in Either 

Year 

New in 

2005–06 

Expanded 

in 2005–06 No Change 

Assist in research projects ........................ 7* 35* 37 2 20 3 22 48* 

Work on curriculum issues....................... 5 35* 41 2* 17 4 19 48* 

Participate in team meetings..................... 9* 27* 46 2 17 3 20 51 Coordinate textbook selection.................. 5* 9 24 2* 60 1 7 32* 

Coordinate professional development 

on technology....................................... 10* 31* 25 4* 29 1 21 36* 

Work with teachers on resources for 

reading/English .................................... 6 43* 39 1* 11 5 28 53 

Work with teachers on curriculum 

development in reading/English .......... 3 28* 33 2 33 4 17 43* 

Teach reading/English with classroom 

teachers ................................................ 6* 24* 28 3 39 3 15 30 

Evaluate reading/English with 

classroom teachers ............................... 4 16* 30 2 48 3 10 34 

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

Coordinate family literacy nights............. 17* 21* 28 1 34 3 10 29 

Coordinate junior scholars after-school 

programs .............................................. 5* 4 10 2 79 0 4 11 

Operate after-school program with 

library orientation ................................ 23* 11* 14 3* 49 1 7 14 

Coordinate book clubs.............................. 6 12* 21* 4 57 4 8 16 

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

rounding. Source: Second evaluation, school library media center survey question 15. 
113 

Exhibit A-31 

Percentage of School Libraries Providing Selected New or Expanded General Programs, 

by School Characteristics, 2005–06 School Year 

School Characteristic Assist With Research Projects Work on Curriculum Issues Participate in Team Meetings Coordinate Textbook Selection Coordinate Professional Development on Technology Provide In

on Infor

Ski

 Percentage of all schools .................. 25 24 24 8 23 36 Nongrantees............................................... 24 23 23 8 22 36 

Grantees 42* 40* 36* 14* 42* 52* 

Received grant for two or more years... 31 27 16 13 30 35 School enrollment size 

400 or fewer...................................... 40 41 33 12 40 53 

401–700 ............................................ 43 39 39 18 42 51 

More than 700................................... 47 40 35 9 43 49 

School level 

Elementary........................................ 40 40 36 13 39 50 Middle/junior high............................ 52 37 30 18 56 56 High school/combined/other ............ 45 41 39 15 40 55 

Urbanicity 

City 37 35 31 14 34 45 Urban fringe...................................... 39 38 31 13 43 55 Town................................................. 45 43 43 12 47 55 Rural 47 45 39 15 46 55 

Free/reduced-price lunch eligibility 

Less than 50 percent......................... 50 45 31 7 39 47 50 percent or more............................ 39 38 38 16 42 53 

Total expenditures per student 

$12.00 or less.................................... 43 40 38 16 37 50 

$12.01–$20.00 .................................. 44 51 39 11 50 56 

More than $20.00 ............................. 43 38 35 12 46 57 

Total FTE staff 

1.25 or less........................................ 38 37 33 16 38 46 1.26–1.75 .......................................... 51 47 45 8 51 67 

More than 1.75.................................. 42 42 32 13 43 50 

FTE = full-time equivalent. Note: The asterisks (*) indicate that there is a statistically significant difference (i.e., p-value ≤ .05) between grantee and nongrantee school libraries. Source: Second evaluation, school library media center survey question 15. 
114 

Exhibit A-32 

Percentage of School Libraries Providing Selected New or Expanded Programs Related to Reading/E

by School Characteristics, 2005–06 School Year 

Work With Classroom Teachers on 

School Characteristic Selecting 

Resources 

Curriculum 

Development 

Teaching 

Reading/English 

Evaluating 

Reading/English 

Curriculum 

Family Literacy 

Nights 

Provid

School 

With 

Orie

 Percentage of all schools................................ 33 21 18 13 14 

Nongrantees............................................................. 33 20 18 12 13 Grantees 49* 32* 30* 20* 38* 

Received grant for two or more years................. 30 25 21 11 32 School enrollment size 

400 or fewer.................................................... 51 32 29 19 43 

401–700 .......................................................... 42 28 28 24 32 More than 700................................................. 60 41 35 13 37 

School level 

Elementary...................................................... 45 30 27 19 39 

Middle/junior high.......................................... 64 49 41 22 37 High school/combined/other .......................... 54 29 30 21 34 

Urbanicity 

City 29 21 22 18 32 Urban fringe.................................................... 52 22 26 12 35 

Town............................................................... 58 53 35 28 47 Rural 62 38 37 22 40 

Free/reduced-price lunch eligibility 

Less than 50 percent....................................... 56 31 32 25 38 50 percent or more.......................................... 46 32 29 18 37 

Total expenditures per student 

$12.00 or less.................................................. 47 30 29 20 32 

$12.01–$20.00 ................................................ 60 41 38 32 39 More than $20.00 ........................................... 47 32 26 17 45 

Total FTE staff 

1.25 or less...................................................... 43 27 26 18 33 

1.26–1.75 ........................................................ 62 42 31 22 51 More than 1.75................................................ 50 34 37 22 37 

FTE = full-time equivalent. Note: The asterisks (*) indicate that there is a statistically significant difference (i.e., p-value ≤ .05) between grantee and nongrantee school libraries. Source: Second evaluation, school library media center survey question 15.
115 

Exhibit A-33 

Mean Number of Staff per School Library and Pupils per Librarian, 

by School Characteristics, Spring 2005 and 2006 

Full-Time Staff Part-Time Staffa Mean Number of Pupils 

per Librarian per School 

School Characteristic 

Spring 

2005 

Spring 

2006 

Percentage 

Changeb 

Spring 

2005 

Spring 

2006 

Percentage 

Changeb

Spring 

2005 

Spring 

2006 

Percentage 

Changeb

 

 Mean of all schools............................. 1.2 1.2 0 0.5 0.5 0 448.8 446.2 -1 

 

Nongrantees................................................. 1.2* 1.2* 0 0.5 0.5 0 450.8* 448.7* 0 

Grantees 1.0 1.0 0 0.6 0.7 17 391.4 371.5 -5 

Received grant for two or more years..... 1.0 1.0 0 0.7 0.7 0 433.7 429.9 -1 

 

School enrollment size 

400 or fewer........................................ 0.8 0.9 13 0.7 0.9 29 261.4 239.9 -8 

401–700 .............................................. 1.1 1.2 9 0.5 0.6 20 428.0 412.9 -4 

More than 700..................................... 1.3 1.3 0 0.3 0.6 100 728.8 717.6 -2 

 

School level 

Elementary.......................................... 1.0 1.0 0 0.6 0.7 17 387.1 371.3 -4 

Middle/junior high.............................. 1.2 1.3 8 0.4 0.5 25 385.9 373.0 -3 

High school/combined/other .............. 0.9 1.0 11 0.6 1.0 67 415.2 371.7 -10 

 

Urbanicity 

City 1.0 1.0 0 0.4 0.6 50 478.2 474.1 -1 

Urban fringe........................................ 1.0 1.0 0 0.6 0.5 -17 453.3 453.5 0 

Town................................................... 1.4 1.4 0 0.5 0.6 20 336.0 314.8 -6 

Rural 0.8 1.0 25 0.8 1.1 38 293.4 247.6 -16 

 

Free/reduced-price lunch eligibility 

Less than 50 percent........................... 1.0 1.0 0 0.6 0.8 33 412.9 399.2 -3 

50 percent or more.............................. 1.0 1.0 0 0.5 0.7 40 383.9 361.8 -6 

 

Total expenditures per student 

$12.00 or less...................................... 0.9 1.0 11 0.5 0.6 20 425.9 403.2 -5 

$12.01–$20.00 .................................... 1.1 1.2 9 0.5 0.8 60 414.2 380.9 -8 

More than $20.00 ............................... 1.0 1.0 0 0.7 0.9 29 335.6 324.7 -3 

 

Total FTE staff 

1.25 or less.......................................... 0.7 0.8 14 0.4 0.6 50 469.6 430.2 -8 

1.26–1.75 ............................................ 1.0 1.0 0 1.1 1.2 9 275.0 272.6 -1 

More than 1.75.................................... 1.9 1.8 -5 0.4 0.7 75 298.8 310.7 4 

FTE = full-time equivalent. 

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

libraries. 

a

Part-time staff are treated as half time. 

b

Statistical significance was not calculated for percentage change. 

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

 

 
116 

Exhibit A-34 

Percentage of Schools Offering Professional Development Related to School Libraries, by Topic A

and School Characteristics, 2005–06 School Year 

School Characteristic 

Selecting 

Materials That 

Align With 

Curriculum 

Integrating 

Technology Into 

the Curriculum 

Methods of 

Collaboration 

Teaching 

Children to 

Read 

Motivating 

Students to 

Read 

Providing 

Instruction in 

Information 

Skills 

Converti

Electro

Catalo

 Percentage of all schools ................... 71 89 77 47 88 81 4Nongrantees................................................ 71 89 76 47 88 81 4Grantees 72 87 83* 60* 88 77 4

Received grant for two or more years.... 72 87 63 66 87 67 6School enrollment size 

400 or fewer....................................... 67 84 81 63 87 74 4

401–700 ............................................. 79 90 82 58 93 80 4More than 700.................................... 67 87 94 54 81 80 3

School level 

Elementary......................................... 72 86 84 63 89 76 4Middle/junior high............................. 75 96 80 52 94 80 4High school/combined/other ............. 67 84 82 51 83 81 4

Urbanicity 

City 65 79 83 63 85 74 4Urban fringe....................................... 78 96 77 61 93 70 3Town.................................................. 75 91 88 51 86 79 4Rural 74 89 84 60 90 84 4

Free/reduced-price lunch eligibility 

Less than 50 percent.......................... 70 90 90 58 89 79 350 percent or more............................. 72 86 81 60 88 77 4

Total expenditures per student 

$12.00 or less..................................... 72 88 83 65 89 74 4

$12.01–$20.00 ................................... 75 90 87 59 88 89 4More than $20.00 .............................. 73 84 81 54 86 78 4

Total FTE staff 

1.25 or less......................................... 71 84 80 59 90 74 41.26–1.75 ........................................... 76 95 88 70 89 81 3

More than 1.75................................... 69 87 85 48 82 82 4

FTE = full-time equivalent.Note: The asterisks (*) indicate that there is a statistically significant difference (i.e., p-value ≤ .05) between grantee and nongrantee school libraries. Source: Second evaluation, school library media center survey question 19.
117 

Exhibit A-35 

Percentage of Schools Offering Professional Development Related to School Libraries, 

by Grantee Status, 2004–05 and 2005–06 School Years 

School Year 

Grantee Status and Topic Area 2004–05 2005–06 

 

Grantees 

Selecting books that align with curriculum.................................................................................. 45 72 

Integrating technology into curriculum........................................................................................ 65 87 

Exploring methods of collaboration............................................................................................. 56 83* 

Teaching children to read ............................................................................................................. 42 60* 

Motivating students to read .......................................................................................................... 70 88 

Providing instruction in information skills .................................................................................. 61 77 

Converting to electronic catalog .................................................................................................. 31 45 

Learning to use online resources.................................................................................................. 66 89 

 

Nongrantees 

Selecting books that align with curriculum.................................................................................. 68* 71 

Integrating technology into curriculum........................................................................................ 84* 89 

Exploring methods of collaboration............................................................................................. 74* 76 

Teaching children to read ............................................................................................................. 45 47 

Motivating students to read .......................................................................................................... 82* 88 

Providing instruction in information skills .................................................................................. 77* 81 

Converting to electronic catalog .................................................................................................. 40* 42 

Learning to use online resources.................................................................................................. 83* 87 

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

libraries. 

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

 
118 

Exhibit A-36 

Percentage of School Libraries Reporting That Library Staff Worked With Classroom Teachers on 

Selected Curriculum Areas at Various Frequency Rates, by Grantee Status, 2005–06 School Year 

Grantee Status Weekly Monthly Quarterly Annually Never Not Applicable 

 

Grantees 

Reading/language arts ..... 60 19 8 5 4 4 

English ............................. 37 22 13* 8 11 10 

Mathematics..................... 11 15 22* 16 29 7 

Science............................. 23* 31 21 12 9 5 

Social studies ................... 29 31 19 9 7 4 

 

Nongrantees 

Reading/language arts ..... 61 16 7 4 6 7 

English ............................. 36 26 9 7 9 13 

Mathematics..................... 11 16 16 14 30 13* 

Science............................. 17 27 21 15 12 9* 

Social studies ................... 25 27 19 10 9 9* 

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

libraries. Percentages may not add to 100 because of rounding. 

Source: Second evaluation, school library media center survey question 11. 
119 

Exhibit A-37 

Percentage of School Libraries Reporting That Library Staff Worked Weekly With Classroom 

Teachers on Selected Curriculum Areas, by School Characteristics, 2005–06 School Year 

School Characteristic Reading/ 

Language Arts English Mathematics Science Social Studies 

 

 Percentage of all schools .................... 61 36 11 17 25 

 

Nongrantees................................................. 61 36 11 17 25 

Grantees 60 37 11 23* 29 

Received grant for two or more years..... 55 27 13 13 22 

 

School enrollment size 

400 or fewer........................................ 57 33 10 17 25 

401–700 .............................................. 58 34 11 23 26 

More than 700..................................... 75 62 17 41 56 

 

School level 

Elementary.......................................... 59 30 13 24 30 

Middle/junior high.............................. 69 50 5 23 25 

High school/combined/other .............. 56 55 10 16 30 

Urbanicity 

City 56 38 12 21 36 

Urban fringe........................................ 56 27 8 20 23 

Town................................................... 68 37 13 28 28 

Rural 61 40 12 24 26 

 

Free/reduced-price lunch eligibility 

Less than 50 percent........................... 66 49 12 22 31 

50 percent or more.............................. 57 33 11 23 29 

Total expenditures per student 

$12.00 or less...................................... 60 36 11 18 26 

$12.01–$20.00 .................................... 65 38 17 39 35 

More than $20.00 ............................... 59 42 10 23 33 

 

Total FTE staff 

1.25 or less.......................................... 57 34 11 21 30 

1.26–1.75 ............................................ 63 42 13 27 29 

More than 1.75.................................... 63 40 11 24 28 

FTE = full-time equivalent. 

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

libraries. 

Source: Second evaluation, school library media center survey question 11. 
120 

Exhibit A-38 

Percentage of School Libraries Reporting That Library Staff Provided Selected Services to 

Classroom Teachers in the Area of Reading or English at Various Frequency Rates, 

by Grantee Status, 2005–06 School Year 

Grantee Status Weekly Monthly Quarterly Annually Never 

Not 

Applicable 

 

Grantees 

Selection of resources............. 29 21 16 18 11 5 

Curriculum development........ 13 18* 11 13 31 14 

Collaborative teaching............ 13 13 16 11 31 16 

Collaborative evaluation......... 7 8 12* 11 43 19 

 

Nongrantees 

Selection of resources............. 27 18 17 21 10 7 

Curricular development.......... 9 13 12 16 33 16 

Collaborative teaching............ 10 12 14 9 38* 18 

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

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

libraries. Percentages may not add to 100 because of rounding. 

Source: Second evaluation, school library media center survey question 12. 
121 

Exhibit A-39 

Percentage of School Libraries Reporting That Library Staff Provided Selected Services to 

Classroom Teachers in the Area of Reading or English, by School Characteristics, 2005–06 School 

Year 

School Characteristic Selecting Resources 

Curriculum 

Development 

Collaborative 

Teaching 

Collaborative 

Evaluation 

 

 Percentage of all schools ......................... 83 51 44 35 

 

Nongrantees...................................................... 83 51 44 34 

Grantees 84 55 53* 38 

Received grant for two or more years.......... 70 41 42 34 

 

School enrollment size 

400 or fewer............................................. 83 57 49 33 

401–700 ................................................... 84 51 52 42 

More than 700.......................................... 88 57 72 44 

 

School level 

Elementary............................................... 80 50 50 34 

Middle/junior high................................... 98 70 63 51 

High school/combined/other ................... 89 64 62 46 

 

Urbanicity 

City 80 39 53 37 

Urban fringe............................................. 77 42 40 22 

Town........................................................ 96 74 63 45 

Rural 86 69 56 44 

 

Free/reduced-price lunch eligibility 

Less than 50 percent................................ 92 62 60 46 

50 percent or more................................... 81 52 51 35 

 

Total expenditures per student 

$12.00 or less........................................... 80 48 52 31 

$12.01–$20.00 ......................................... 87 65 53 46 

More than $20.00 .................................... 89 60 54 42 

 

Total FTE staff 

1.25 or less............................................... 77 49 47 34 

1.26–1.75 ................................................. 94 62 58 43 

More than 1.75......................................... 93 63 66 43 

FTE = full-time equivalent. 

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

libraries. 

Source: Second evaluation, school library media center survey question 12. 
122

Exhibit A-40 

Percentage of School Libraries Providing Instruction in Information Skills Through Various Appro

by School Characteristics, 2005–06 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

 Percentage of all schools ......................... 34 7 50 9 78 

Nongrantees...................................................... 34 7 50 9 78 Grantees 42* 6 47 5 78 

Received grant for two or more years.......... 28 9 55 8 78 School enrollment size 

400 or fewer............................................. 48 8 39 5 81 

401–700 ................................................... 40 5 49 6 76 More than 700.......................................... 28 3 67 3 71 

School level 

Elementary............................................... 49 7 38 6 76 

Middle/junior high................................... 28 3 69 84 High school/combined/other ................... 26 3 66 5 82 

Urbanicity 

City 46 7 42 6 71 Urban fringe............................................. 50 11 34 5 72 

Town........................................................ 35 2 58 6 91 Rural 39 4 53 4 82 

Free/reduced-price lunch eligibility 

Less than 50 percent................................ 48 3 49 0 86 50 percent or more................................... 40 7 46 7 75 

Total expenditures per student 

$12.00 or less........................................... 43 6 49 2 82 

$12.01–$20.00 ......................................... 43 2 49 6 80 More than $20.00 .................................... 45 7 45 3 74 

Total FTE staff 

1.25 or less............................................... 43 7 44 6 75 

1.26–1.75 ................................................. 54 3 41 2 76 More than 1.75......................................... 28 5 61 6 86 

FTE = full-time equivalent. Note: The asterisks (*) indicates that there is a statistically significant difference (i.e., p-value ≤ .05) between grantee and nongrantee school libraries. Percentages rounding. Source: Second evaluation, school library media center survey questions 13 and 14. 
123 

APPENDIX B 

METHODOLOGY 
124 
125 

Methodology 

Sample Design and Weighting 

This study focused on districts (or consortia of districts) and schools receiving grants in 2005. 

Although school districts were the official recipients of the grants, much of the data sought for this 

evaluation were likely to be available only at the school level. The study therefore collected district 

information from the district performance reports (which are required as a condition of receiving the 

grant) and school information through a separate school survey. With roughly 450 schools participating in 

the grants for 2005, and up to 53 participating schools per district, sampling was undertaken as a way of 

reducing burden and costs. Further, when a large number of schools in a district are participating, those 

schools’ programs are not truly independent of one another but, rather, share many commonalities (e.g., 

there may be a districtwide effort to revise the curriculum or the libraries may share a common strategy in 

determining which types of books are needed). Such commonalities lessen the need to survey all schools. 

A subsample of 400 grantee schools was selected from the targeted schools in districts that 

received grants in 2005–06. The subsampling of the grantee schools was designed to ensure that at least 

one school was selected from each of the 85 districts or consortia of districts that were awarded grants in 

2005–06. Schools in the 11 districts that received grants for 2005–06 and prior years were included in the 

frame of grantee schools as a way of examining what changes were associated with prolonged 

participation in the library program. However, schools in districts that received grants in prior years but 

not for 2005–06 were not included either in the grantee or in the comparison school frame because they 

might have systematic differences from both groups. 

Similarly, a sample of 400 comparison schools was selected by drawing an equal number of 

comparison schools from each of the specified matching cells, based on the sampling strata. The sample 

of comparison schools included both (a) districts that applied for but were denied grants and (b) districts 

that were eligible but did not apply for grants. Schools in districts that had received grants in prior years 

were excluded from the comparison school frame. In the 2005 evaluation report, about 25 percent of the 

comparison schools belonged to the first group. They thus were sufficiently common that stratification to 

control the number of such districts was unnecessary, and this distinction was not made for the current 

study. Nongrantee schools that did not belong to any of the matching cells (e.g., schools in districts in 

which fewer than 20 percent of the students are from families with incomes below poverty levels) were 

excluded from the comparison school frame. The most current (2003–04) National Center for Education 

Statistics (NCES) Common Core of Data (CCD) Local Education Agency Universe File (augmented with 

information from other available data sources such as the district-level Title I data file maintained by 

NCES) was used to create the frame. The district-level characteristics that were used in the matching 

process included region, district poverty status, school district type, urbanicity and district enrollment 

size. The school-level characteristics that were used in the matching process included instructional level, 

school type, enrollment size, type of locale, percentage of students belonging to racial or ethnic 

minorities, and percentage of students receiving free or reduced-priced lunches. Special attention was 

given to identifying similar comparison schools for those few grantee schools with unusual characteristics 

(charter school districts or single-school districts). 

The comparison schools intentionally included a mixture of districts that applied for grants but 

were rejected and districts that did not apply. One could argue that the schools that applied but were 

rejected are most comparable to the grantee sites, with their decision to apply possibly reflecting a reform 

orientation (or other characteristic) that may itself be important in influencing school and student 

outcomes (or, for that matter, in how the grant is implemented). This reasoning could be an argument for 

sampling only from districts that applied for the grant. However, extrapolating the potential influence of 
126 

the program is improved if a broader set of districts or schools is used for the sample. For example, the 

importance of such a reform orientation (or other characteristic) can only be measured by also examining 

districts or schools that did not apply for a grant. 

With this design, the comparison of the grantee schools with similar comparison schools can be 

used as one way of measuring the outcomes of the program. It may be that the outcomes of the program 

will vary depending both on how it is implemented at the sites and on the characteristics of the schools 

where it is implemented. The sample design should be helpful in examining such differences by assuring 

a broad range of school and district characteristics. Additionally, because the questionnaire asked for 

some retrospective data to allow the measurement of change over time, the comparison schools can be 

used to measure whether the changes might be attributed to factors other than the library program (such as 

a general movement toward school reform). 

It should be noted that school library services are organized in a variety of ways. Except in a few 

cases in this report where district statistics are considered, the unit of analysis for this study is considered 

to be school libraries rather than schools. That is, the focus of this study is on what changes occurred in 

school libraries, looking at such topics as the level of usage of school libraries, the resources held by these 

school libraries, the services provided by libraries, and their finances; all of these data are library-based 

statistics rather than school statistics. Thus, for this study, we excluded from the analysis schools without 

libraries, including a small number of schools with classroom collections only. A greater number of 

schools have school libraries but no librarians; these were not excluded from the analysis, and some other 

school official (e.g., the principal) provided data on the library. A few schools shared a library with 

another school and were able only to provide statistics on the combined use of the library. Because the 

library rather than the school was being treated as the unit of analysis, the data in such cases were 

weighted to reflect the number of libraries rather than the number of schools. 

The data have been weighted for nonresponse and the probability of selection, so the grantee 

schools represent the full total of 407 grantee school libraries (after removing ineligible schools and 

adjusting for situations where two schools shared a single library), and the nongrantee schools represent 

the full total of 12,014 eligible nongrantee school libraries. 

Ideally, an evaluation study would examine the school libraries over multiple years after the receipt 

of the grant rather than only the year of the grant, for several reasons. 

• Some changes resulting from the grants may have not yet been fully realized in the 2005–06 

school year because a change had been in effect for only part of the year (for this reason, some 

items in the questionnaire focused on spring 2006). 

• Changes in students may lag behind the changes made in the libraries; for example, it may take 

time before changes in a library’s holdings are associated with improvements in students’ 

reading literacy. 

• Some types of changes might be more likely to persist than others. For example, a library’s 

holdings would continue to reflect the extra purchases that were funded by the grant, but over 

time, the holdings may again become more outdated if the school lacks sufficient funds for 

continued updates. Other differences, and especially those that required hiring additional 

personnel, might show changes in later years; for example, to the degree that the grant funds 

were used to fund extending the hours in which a school library is open, schools may lack the 

funding to continue such extended hours after the grant has expired. Changes that are brought 

about through professional development activities might have the best chances of persisting, 

though the provision of library services and increased collaboration may depend not only on 
127 

people’s skills but also on resources that are available (e.g., to support the services or to 

provide time in which the activities can be conducted). 

This study thus is intended to provide a preliminary measure of how the grants were implemented and 

what changes were associated with receipt of the grants. 

Although most of the data in this report are from school surveys that were administered to both 

grantees and nongrantees, some data also were taken from the performance reports that were submitted to 

the U.S. Department of Education at the completion of the grant period by the participating districts. The 

form used for the performance reports was designed by the Department, with input from Westat. These 

data exist only for the districts receiving grantees and, thus, cannot be compared with other districts. Still, 

they provide a different perspective on the administration of the grants (i.e., by either districts or consortia 

of districts) and are particularly helpful for describing the district’s role in implementing the grants, for 

example, describing how schools were selected to participate in the grants or how the funds were 

distributed to schools. Districts were required to complete the performance reports as a condition of 

receiving the grants; however, some districts received extensions to allow sufficient time to implement 

the programs, and some of these extended beyond the evaluation time frame. At the time of the 

preparation of this report, 75 of the 85 grantees for 2005–06 had sent performance reports. District 

performance reports for 2004–05 also were included in the evaluation; 70 of the 92 grantees for 2004–05 

had submitted reports. Some types of districts were more likely to submit the reports than others, though 

the differences were usually small. The most notable differences were that districts were more likely to 

respond if their grants were $100,000 or less (80 percent versus 63 percent to 65 percent among the other 

grant size categories), and if they were either small or large (79 percent and 72 percent, respectively, 

versus 46 percent among those with enrollment between 500 and 1,999). The data were weighted to adjust 

for nonresponse. 

Grantees for 2003 through 2005 were considered for becoming case study sites. The most 

important criterion in selecting sites was whether there was some indication that promising practices were 

occurring in the district. The strategies used to obtain this information were review of all LSL project 

abstracts, review of LSL conference call notes from the program administrator with respect to FY 2005 

projects, review of the highlights document on the LSL Web site with respect to FY 2004 projects, and 

solicitation of recommendations from school library experts. Other criteria were that the districts and 

schools had met adequate yearly progress (AYP),21 that the activities conducted as a part of the LSL grant 

were continuing and that most of the key staff were still working in the district. In addition, sites were 

selected to reflect a diversity in terms of race/ethnicity, level of poverty, locale and geographic region of 

the country. 

Questionnaire Development 

To facilitate measures of change that might be associated with receipt of the grants, many of the 

survey questions asked for data for both the 2004–05 and the 2005–06 school years, with the first year 

representing the condition of the school libraries before the grant and the second year representing the 

condition of the school libraries during the year of the grant. The questionnaire was designed to apply to 

both grantees and nongrantees to receive comparable data from both types of school libraries. That is, the 

questions were phrased in a general manner (e.g., asking about what services were offered or the size of 

the collections) without specifically referring to the grants. 

 

21 AYP is an individual state’s measure of progress toward the goal of 100 percent of students achieving to state academic standards in at least 

reading/language arts and math. It sets the minimum level of proficiency that the state, its school districts and schools must achieve each year 

on annual tests and related academic indicators. 
128 

A pretest of the School Library Media Center Survey was conducted between February 24, 2006, 

and April 21, 2006. Originally, nine schools agreed to participate in the pretest, but one dropped out 

because of a death in the family of the respondent. The results from the eight remaining schools were 

quite consistent, so their responses were used without making a last minute substitution for the school that 

dropped out. The pretest schools were selected not only to include both grantees and nongrantees but also 

to collectively represent a variety of school characteristics (i.e., based on geographic region, enrollment 

size, urbanicity and grade level). The responses to the pretest were used to revise the questionnaire, 

rephrasing the directions to several questions to emphasize that estimates were acceptable when records 

with exact amounts were not available. The questionnaire was also reviewed by the U.S. Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB), and revised in response to comments from that review. OMB approval 

to conduct the survey was received on September 19, 2006. 

For the case studies, interview protocols were developed for the program administrator at the 

district level as well as for the principal, school librarian and classroom teacher. In addition, an 

observation form for LSL-related activities was prepared. The protocols were reviewed by the U.S. 

Department of Education and OMB. 

Data Collection and Processing 

 

 Surveys 

Data collection began with a mailout of the survey questionnaire to school libraries in October 

2006. All data collection activities were ended on March 20, 2007. All data collection for the survey was 

conducted by REDA International, Inc., as a subcontractor to Westat. Telephone follow-up was used to 

prompt school libraries that had not yet responded and to resolve questions concerning data quality that 

appeared during reviews of the data. 

Exhibit B-1 presents the response rates to the survey. Of the 400 grantee schools that were 

sampled, 49 were either closed or ineligible because of not having school libraries, leaving 360 school 

libraries. Of these, 315 responded to the survey for a response rate of 88 percent. Of the 406 nongrantee 

schools that were sampled, 47 were closed or ineligible, leaving a total of 357 school libraries. Of these, 

296 responded to the survey, for a response rate of 83 percent. The combined response rate across both 

grantee school libraries and nongrantee school libraries was 85 percent, or 611 of 717 school libraries. 

Exhibit B-1 

Number of Schools Sampled and Number of Responses 

School 

Characteristic 

Original 

Sample 

Closed 

Schools Ineligible Total Eligible Number of Responses 

Response 

Rate (%) 

Total ............. 806 13 83 717 611 85 

Grantees........ 400 8 41 360 315 88 

Nongrantees.. 406 5 42 357 296 83 

The completed questionnaires were reviewed for completeness and internal consistency. 

Questionnaires that had fewer than 100 completed data items were considered as nonresponses and 

discarded. Depending on the questionnaire item and the type of problem that was found, problematic 

responses were verified by checking the original questionnaire or calling the respondent or, in a few 

cases, by setting extreme outliers to have missing values. 
129 

 Case Studies 

Case study site visitor training took place on September 21, 2006. Seven site visits were conducted 

by two-person teams, and two site visits were conducted by one senior project staff member. The site 

visits were conducted between November 2006 and January 2007; each involved a visit to one or two 

schools. 

Derived Variables 

Several analytic variables were created by combining data from multiple questionnaire items, either 

to create measures that would be more comparable across all schools or to summarize the data more 

compactly and better represent overall patterns in the responses. Following are the specific variables that 

were created for this reason and the way in which they were derived. 

Standardization based on school enrollment. Several measures were created as ratios with 

respect to the school enrollment to create statistics that would be more comparable across schools of 

different sizes. 

• Usage in typical week per student enrolled (e.g., Q2apct = Q2a/Q1) 

• Materials checked out per student enrolled (e.g., Q3aperstu = Q3a/Q1) 

• Number of pupils per librarian (e.g., if paidstaff06fte > 0, then mps2006 = q1/paidstaff06fte; 

see below for derivation of paidstaff04fte) 

Other summary variables. Following are additional variables that were created to summarize the 

data contained in multiple variables: 

• Nonschool hours of access 

(e.g., nonschl06 = sum(q6a_1*q6a_2,q6b_1*q6b_2,q6c,q6d) 

• Total full-time staff (e.g., ftstaff06 = q9a_1+q9b_1+q9c_1) 

• Total part-time staff (e.g., ptstaff06 = q9a_2+q9b_2+q9c_2) 

• Total paid staff using full-time equivalents 

(e.g., paidstaff06fte = q9a_1+q9b_1+q9c_1+(q9a_2+q9b_2+q9c_2)/2) 

• Mean paid staff per student 

(e.g., if paidstaff06fte > 0 then mps2006 = q1/paidstaff06fte) 

• Total expenditures for materials other than those reported in question 32 

(q32oth = q33_1-q32a_3-q32b_3-q32c_3-q32d_3-q32e_3 

• Expenditures as a percentage of total expenditures for materials 

(e.g., q32a_3pct = q32a_3/q33_) 

• Electronic services networked to locations outside the library (e.g., if q27a_3 = 1 or q27a_4 = 1 

then q27a_34 = 1; else if q27a_3 ge 0 and q27a_4 ge 0 then q27a_34 = 2;) 
130 

• Number of programs or services that were added or expanded in 2005–06 (for each library, the 

count of the number of items from q15a through q15n that are equal to either 1 or 2) 

Analytic Techniques 

Some of the survey data suggest that the grantees may have been relatively disadvantaged when 

compared with the larger pool of eligible schools. It is possible that even if the grants had a positive 

influence, the grants may have helped only to compensate for these earlier disadvantages, and the 

grantees may not necessarily compare favorably with the nongrantees even after receiving the grants. For 

this reason, when possible, this analysis focuses especially on changes from 2004–05 to 2005–06 rather 

than on straight comparisons based on 2005–06 alone. This approach provides a way of adjusting for 

possible differences in starting points and, thus, provides a more accurate indication of how the schools 

and libraries changed. When statistics for 2004–05 are not available, however, then comparisons are 

limited to a single year, and the statistics may tend to understate the changes that resulted from receiving 

the grants. 

Most of the statistics in this report are percentages or means, along with a few statistics that are 

based on regression analysis. Regression analysis is most useful when one wishes to simultaneously allow 

for the influence of multiple variables; for example, student test scores have been shown to be related to 

many factors, and an analysis of the association of the grants with test scores would especially require a 

multivariate approach such as regression analysis. Conceivably, if one has a well-developed statistical 

model, multivariate regression analysis could be used to adjust for the differences between grantees and 

nongrantees, which would lessen the need for having multiple years of data. For example, if only data for 

2005–06 are available, and if grantees and nongrantees appear to have similar results, then regression 

analysis might be used to test whether the grantees had better results than otherwise might be expected. 

Regression analysis can also be helpful when one desires to make a specific prediction (e.g., that an 

increase in expenditures of x amount will result in a change of y percent) rather than determine only 

whether two variables are correlated. 

Regardless of the statistical approach being used, all statements of comparison in this report have 

been checked for statistical significance to help assure that the differences are not likely to be the result of 

chance variations in the statistical sample. The statistics have been rounded, generally to the closest 

integer. An estimate of 0 percent may appear either if no respondents gave the indicated answer or if the 

percentage of such respondents was less than 0.5 percent. 

The appendix tables often include a line for “total” that includes both grantees and nongrantees. 

However, the weighted number of nongrantees was much larger than the number of grantees (16,076 

versus 628), so the estimates in those lines are largely identical to those for nongrantees. 

Variance Estimation 

Statistical significance is used to measure the probability that an observed relationship could have 

occurred by chance because the use of statistical sampling creates some possibility that the relationships 

observed in the sample may be attributed to peculiarities in the sample that might not appear if the full 

universe of public schools were included in the survey. The fact that a relationship is found to be 

statistically significant does not necessarily mean that the relationship is important; the larger the size of 

the sample, the less likely the survey is to differ from a census of all schools, regardless of the importance 

of the relationship that is observed. For this reason, this report is generally limited to differences of at 

least 10 percentage points as a way of limiting the discussion to those differences that are most important 

(in terms of the size of the differences found). Similarly, the failure to find a statistically significant 

relationship does not necessarily mean that two variables are not related in some important way. It means 
131 

that there is at least a 0.05 probability that the result could have occurred by chance, not that it did occur 

by chance. Of course, it is also possible that other ways of looking at the variables (e.g., by also 

incorporating different variables into the analysis) might have produced statistically significant results. 

The standard error is a measure of the variability of estimates because of sampling. It indicates the 

variability of a sample estimate that would be obtained from all possible samples of a given design and 

size. Standard errors are used as a measure of the precision expected from a particular sample. If all 

possible samples were surveyed under similar conditions, then intervals of 1.96 standard errors below to 

1.96 standard errors above a particular statistic would include the true population parameter being 

estimated in about 95 percent of the samples. This parameter is a 95 percent confidence interval. For 

example, the estimated percentage of grantees reporting that their school library staff received 

professional development on school libraries during the 2005–06 school year was 78.99 percent, and the 

estimated standard error is 0.982 percent. The 95 percent confidence interval for the statistic extends from 

[78.99-(0.982 times 1.96)] to [78.99+ (0.982 times 1.96)] or from 77.07percent to 80.91 percent. 

Because the samples of grantees and nongrantees were stratified samples, standard variance 

estimates that assume a simple random sample are not appropriate. Estimates of standard errors for this 

report were computed using a technique known as a jackknife replication method. All specific statements 

of comparison made in this report have been tested for statistical significance, and they are significant at 

the 95 percent confidence level or better (Exhibit B-2). In addition, Bonferroni adjustments were made to 

control for multiple comparisons where appropriate. Bonferroni adjustments correct for the fact that a 

number of comparisons (g) are being made simultaneously. The adjustment is made by dividing the 0.05 

significance level by g comparisons, effectively increasing the critical value necessary for a difference to 

be statistically different. As a result of this adjustment, comparisons that would have been significant with 

an unadjusted critical t value of 1.96 may not be significant with the Bonferroni-adjusted critical t value. 

For example, the Bonferroni-adjusted critical t value for comparisons between any three of the four 

categories of urbanicity is 2.65 rather than 1.96. Consequently, there must be a larger difference between 

the estimates being compared for there to be a statistically significant difference when the Bonferroni 

adjustment is applied than when it is not. 

Exhibit B-2 

Selected Standard Errors for School Survey Statistics 

Questionnaire Item and Grantee Status Estimate Standard 

Error 

Grantees 

Mean library usage per week per student enrolled, spring 2006 ............................................ 1.438 0.0220 

Mean number of materials checked out per student enrolled, spring 2006 ............................ 2.163 0.0602 

Mean number of nonschool hours of access, spring 2005 ..................................................... 3.564 0.0636 

Q16. Staff received professional development on school libraries (percentage) ................... 78.994 0.9821 

Q19a. Overall reading/English collection in spring 2006 was excellent (percentage) ........... 33.478 1.0353 

Q10. Worked monthly with principal and/or teachers on curriculum issues (percentage) ... 42.257 1.2388 

Nongrantees 

Mean library usage per week per student enrolled, spring 2006 ............................................ 1.175 0.1156 

Mean number of materials checked out per student enrolled, spring 2006 ............................ 1.875 0.2194 

Mean number of nonschool hours of access, spring 2006 ..................................................... 6.730 0.3536 

Q16. Staff received professional development on school libraries (percentage) ................... 71.777 2.8603 

Q19a. Overall reading/English collection in spring 2006 was excellent (percentage) ........... 23.694 2.6295 

Q10. Worked monthly with principal and/or teachers on curriculum issues (percentage) ... 29.349 2.6843 
132 
133 

APPENDIX C 

SCHOOL LIBRARY QUESTIONNAIRE 
134 
135 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

OFFICE OF THE UNDER SECRETARY 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20202 

IMPROVING LITERACY THROUGH SCHOOL LIBRARIES 

SCHOOL LIBRARY MEDIA CENTER SURVEY 

O.M.B. No.: 1875–0230 

EXP. DATE: 09/30/2009 

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 

OR E-MAIL: 

adjangali@redainternational.com 

According to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, no persons are required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a valid OMB control 

number. The valid OMB control number for this information is 1875–0230. The time required to complete this information collection is estimated to 

average 55 minutes per response, including the time to review instructions, search existing data resources, gather the data needed, and complete and review 

the information collected. If you have any comments concerning the accuracy of the time estimate(s) or suggestions for improving this form, please write to: 

U.S. Department of Education, Washington, DC 20202–4651. If you have any comments or concerns regarding the status of your individual submission of 

this form, write directly to: Beth Franklin, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, S.W., Washington, DC 20202. 
136 
137 

LIBRARY ORGANIZATION, USAGE, AND STAFFING 

For this survey, a library media center (LMC) is defined as an organized collection of printed and/or 

audiovisual and/or computer resources that (a) is administered as a unit, (b) is located in a designated place or 

places, and (c) makes resources and services available to students, teachers, and administrators. It is this 

definition, not the name, that is important; your school might call this a library, media center, resource center, 

information center, instructional materials center, learning resource center, or some other name. 

1. Around the first of April 2006, what was the total number of students enrolled in this school in grades K-12 

and comparable ungraded levels? (DO NOT include prekindergarten, postsecondary, or adult education 

students.) 

 students 

2. During a typical full week of school, approximately how many students used the school library media 

center (LMC) in spring 2006 and spring 2005? (Both individual and group visits should be counted. If 

multiple visits by one person, count each visit. Estimates may be used.) 

a. In spring 2006: ___________ students 

b. In spring 2005: ___________ students 

c. How accurate are the above statistics? (Circle one response.) 

 Very accurate/we regularly collect data on library visits or 

made special counts for one or more days. ................................ 1 

 Estimate is within 5 percent of the correct answer. ................... 2 

 Estimate may be off by more than 5 percent.............................. 3 

3. During a typical full week of school, what was the total number of books and other materials checked out 

from the LMC in spring 2006 and spring 2005? 

a. In spring 2006: ____________ books and other materials 

b. In spring 2005: ____________ books and other materials 

4. During a typical full week of school, what was the total number of hours that your school’s library media 

center was open in spring 2006 and spring 2005? (Please include the time that your library was open 

during nonschool hours, including weekends. Please round your answer to the closest half hour.) 

a. In spring 2006: ____________ Hours per week 

b. In spring 2005: ____________ Hours per week 
138 

5. Did this school provide students with access to the LMC during nonschool hours in spring 2006 and/or 

spring 2005? (Circle one response.) 

 Yes, in both years....................................................................... 1 

 Yes, in spring 2006 only ............................................................ 2 

 Yes, in spring 2005 only ............................................................ 3 

 No, not in either year.................................................................. 4 SKIP TO QUESTION 8 

6. How many hours per day was your school library media center open during nonschool hours during spring 

2006 and spring 2005? (Please round your answer to the closest half hour. Enter 0 if your school was not 

open for a particular time period. If your school library media center was open before or after school, 

enter the number of days per week it was open for extended hours.)

Spring 2006 Spring 2005 

a. 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 2005–06 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 2006 and 2005? 

a. In summer 2006: ____________ Days 

b. In summer 2005: ____________ Days 
139 

9. For each of the categories listed below, please indicate the number of persons working full time and the 

number working part time in the library media center in spring 2006 and spring 2005. Please include only 

staff working full time in this 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 2006 

(Number of staff) 

Spring 2005 

(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. Parent volunteers............................................................ 

e. Other adult volunteers.................................................... 

f. Total ............................................................................... 

PROGRAMS AND SERVICES 

10. Please indicate how frequently the following services were provided by staff in your school library media 

center during the 2005–06 school year. (Circle one response on each 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 
140 

11. During the 2005–06 school year, how frequently did library staff work with classroom teachers in each of 

the following curricular areas? (Circle one response on each 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 2005–06 school year, how frequently did the LMC staff provide the following services to 

classroom teachers in the area of reading or English?(Circle one response on each 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 2005–06? (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 2005–06? (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 
141 

15. Which of the following services and programs were new to your library in 2005–06 and which ones were 

expanded in 2005–06 compared to 2004–05? (Circle one response on each line.) 

New in 

2005–06 

Expanded 

in 2005–06 No change 

Decreased 

or 

eliminated 

in 2005–06

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 

16. To what extent, if any, is each of the following a barrier to your library’s ability to provide services during 

nonschool hours during the school year? (Circle one response on each line.) 

 No 

barrier 

Small 

barrier 

Moderate 

barrier 

Major 

barrier 

a. Availability of library staff .......................... 1 2 3 4 

b. Transportation for students.......................... 1 2 3 4 

c. Transportation for parents to participate in 

family programs........................................... 1 2 3 4 

d. Availability of parents to participate in 

family programs........................................... 1 2 3 4 

e. Safety concerns............................................ 1 2 3 4 
142 

PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT 

17. Did any staff in your school receive professional development on topics related to school libraries during 

the 2005–06 or 2004–05 school years? 

 Yes.......................... 1 

 No ........................... 2 SKIP TO QUESTION 20 

18. How many of the following types of staff received professional development related to school libraries 

during the 2005–06 and 2004–05 school years? 

 Number of staff 

 2005–06 2004–05 

a. Principal............................................................................................ _______ _______ 

b. School library media specialist(s)..................................................... _______ _______ 

c. Reading specialist(s)......................................................................... _______ _______ 

d. Classroom teacher(s) ........................................................................ _______ _______ 

e. Other paid employee(s), such as paraprofessional(s), 

clerical(s), or aide(s)......................................................................... _______ _______ 

f. Other (please specify)_____________________________________ _______ _______ 

19. Were the following topics related to school libraries covered in the professional development activities? 

(Circle one response on each line.) 

2005–06 2004–05 

 Yes No Yes No 

a. How to select books and materials that align with the 

curriculum.......................................................................... 1 2 1 2 

b. How to integrate educational technology into the 

curriculum.......................................................................... 1 2 1 2 

c. Methods in which teachers and school library media 

specialists can collaborate ................................................. 1 2 1 2 

d. Teaching children to read .................................................. 1 2 1 2 

e. Motivating students to read ............................................... 1 2 1 2 

f. Providing instruction in information skills to students.......... 1 2 1 2 

g. Converting to an electronic catalog or circulation system. 1 2 1 2 

h. Learning how to use online resources ............................... 1 2 1 2 

i. Other (please specify)______________________________ 1 2 1 2 

j. Other (please specify)______________________________ 1 2 1 2 
143 

MATERIALS AND RESOURCES 

20. In your opinion, how adequate were the LMC’s holdings in supporting the instructional program in 

reading/English in spring 2006 and in spring 2005? (Circle one response for spring 2006 and one response 

for spring 2005 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 2006 Spring 2005 

 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 

21. For each of the following areas, please indicate the adequacy of the LMC’s resources in meeting the 

school’s needs in that area in spring 2006 and spring 2005. (Circle one response on each line.)

Spring 2006 

 Inadequate Adequate Excellent Not applicable

a. English as a second language ........................... 1 2 3 4 

b. Multicultural materials ..................................... 1 2 3 4 

c. High interest-low vocabulary ........................... 1 2 3 4 

d. Picture books/easy readers................................ 1 2 3 4 

e. Proprietary online resources/subscriptions....... 1 2 3 4 

 

Spring 2005 

 Inadequate Adequate Excellent Not applicable

f. English as a second language ........................... 1 2 3 4 

g. Multicultural materials ..................................... 1 2 3 4 

h. High interest-low vocabulary ........................... 1 2 3 4 

i. Picture books/easy readers................................ 1 2 3 4 

j. Proprietary online resources/subscriptions....... 1 2 3 4 
144 

22. What is the copyright year of the LMC’s most recent world atlas? (Please write one answer for whatever 

format, e.g., print, CD-ROM, online, is most recent.) _________ 

23. What is the copyright year of this LMC’s most recent general knowledge encyclopedia? (Please write one 

answer for whatever format, e.g., print, CD-ROM, online, is most recent.) _________ 

24. What are the average copyright years of your fiction and nonfiction collections? (If you are not able to 

make precise calculations, please provide your best estimates. Please provide a single year for each 

collection and not a range of years.) 

a. Fiction collection............................................................................ 

b. Nonfiction collection, including reference materials ..................... 

c. How accurate are your responses to 23a and 23b above? (Circle one response.)

 Highly accurate/comes directly from recent search of records or computer database....... 1 

 Estimate should be within 2 years of correct date.............................................................. 2 

 Estimate should be within 5 years of correct date.............................................................. 3 

 Estimate could easily be off by more than 5 years............................................................. 4 

25. On what basis did you select the books you added to your collection during the 2005–06 school year? 

(Circle one response on each 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 

26. 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 
145 

27. Are the following electronic services available in the library media center either through stand-alone 

computers (not linked to a network), library local area network (LAN), building-wide LAN, or district wide 

area network (WAN)? (Circle all that apply on each 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 

28. Please indicate whether or not your LMC has computer access (by the Internet or other networks) to the 

catalog of the following? (Circle one response on each line.)

Yes No 

a. Public library......................................................................................................... 1 2 

b. Community college library ................................................................................... 1 2 

c. College or university library (excluding community college) .............................. 1 2 

d. Other school libraries in your district ................................................................... 1 2 

e. School libraries outside your district .................................................................... 1 2 

29. During the last 12 months, did your school participate in any cooperative activity with a local public 

library? Examples of cooperative activities include borrowing books for the school library, informing the 

public library of students’ upcoming homework needs, sharing online resources, and planning for a summer 

reading program. 

 Yes ........................................................................................................... 1 

 No ............................................................................................................ 2 SKIP TO QUESTION 32 

 Not applicable, public library has bookmobile service only.................... 3 SKIP TO QUESTION 32 

 Not applicable, there is no local public library or bookmobile service.... 4 SKIP TO QUESTION 32 
146 

30. During the last 12 months, how often did your school participate in the following cooperative activities 

with one or more local public libraries? (Circle one on each 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 

31. Did your school work with the public library in planning for a summer reading program conducted for 

school-age children last summer? 

 Yes ............... 1 

 No ................ 2 

HOLDINGS AND EXPENDITURES 

32. During the 2005–06 school year, what were the total holdings, additions, and expenditures for the library 

media center for each of the following kinds of materials? (Any subscriptions that were renewed in 2005–

06 should be included in Column 2. If you are not able to get an exact count, please provide your best 

estimate.) 

(1) 

Total number held 

at the END of 

the 2005–06 

school year 

(2) 

Number 

ACQUIRED 

DURING 

the 2005–06 

school year 

(3) 

Report the amount 

spent for rental 

and purchase 

during the 

2005–06 school 

year. Round to 

the nearest dollar.

a. Books (count all copies)............................ $ 

b. Video materials (tape, DVD or laser disc 

titles. Do not report duplicates) ................. $ 

c. CD-ROM titles (do not report duplicates). $ 

d. Current print or microform periodical 

subscriptions (do not report duplicates) .... $ 

e. Electronic subscriptions ............................ $ 
147 

For Questions 33 through 35, if you are not able to get an exact amount, please provide your best estimate. 

33. What was the TOTAL expenditure for all materials for this library media center during the 2005–06 and 

2004–05 school years? (This total should include all the types of materials listed above in Question 32 as 

well as other materials such as globes, posters, and pictures. Supplies should not be included.) 

a. Total expenditure for materials in 2005–06 ..................... $ 

b. Total expenditure for materials in 2004–05 ..................... $ 

34. What was the total expenditure for computer hardware, other than communications equipment, for this 

library media center during the 2005–06 and 2004–05 school years? (Include expenditures for purchase, 

rental, and/or lease.) 

a. Total expenditure for computer hardware in 2005–06 ............... $________________ 

b. Total expenditure for computer hardware in 2004–05 ............... $________________ 

35. What was the total expenditure for audiovisual equipment for this library media center during the 2005–06 

and 2004–05 school years? (Include expenditures for purchase, rental, and/or lease.) 

a. Total expenditure for audiovisual equipment in 2005–06.......... $________________ 

b. Total expenditure for audiovisual equipment in 2004–05.......... $________________ 

SCHOOL INFORMATION 

36. What grades are offered in your school? (Circle all grades that apply or if your school is ungraded, specify 

ages of children enrolled.) 

PreK K 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Ungraded, specify age 

groups: 

37. Does your school have a computer lab? 

 Yes ............... 1 

 No ................ 2 SKIP TO QUESTION 39 

38. Is the computer lab considered part of the school library? (The computer lab may be physically separate 

from the rest of the school library.) 

 Yes ............... 1 

 No ................ 2 

39. Within the past 2 years, has your school conducted a needs assessment of school LMC programs and 

services? (Circle one response on each line.)

 Yes ............... 1 

 No ................ 2 SKIP TO QUESTION 41 
148 

40. For each of the categories listed below, please indicate in column (1) whether or not that need was 

identified in the needs assessment; and in column (2) whether or not changes were made in that area as a 

result of the needs assessment. (Circle yes or no in each 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 

41. Has your school ever participated in the Improving Literacy Through School Libraries Program? 

 Yes ............... 1 

 No ................ 2 SKIP TO QUESTION 43 

42. In what school years has your school participated in the Improving Literacy Through School Libraries 

Program? (Circle one response on each line.) 

Yes No 

a. 2002–03............................................................................................................... 1 2 

b. 2003–04............................................................................................................... 1 2 

c. 2004–05............................................................................................................... 1 2 

d. 2005–06............................................................................................................... 1 2 

e. 2006–07............................................................................................................... 1 2 

43. Did your school participate in any of the following federal education programs during the 2005–06 school 

year? (Circle one response on each line.)

Yes No 

a. Reading First ....................................................................................................... 1 2 

b. Early Reading First.............................................................................................. 1 2 

c. Comprehensive School Reform (CSR) ............................................................... 1 2 

d. Title I ................................................................................................................... 1 2 

e. 21st Century Community Learning Centers........................................................ 1 2 

f. Other (please specify) 1 2 
149 

44. How much did your school library receive from the following outside sources of funding during the 2005–

06 school year? (Write one response on each line If you did not receive any funds from a listed source, 

write $0. Do not include in-kind contributions such as donations of books.) 

Amount of funding 

a. State allotment..................................................................................................... $____________ 

b. Corporate donors, such as Partners in Education ................................................ $____________ 

c. Not-for-profit group (please specify) $____________ 

d. Other (please specify) $____________ 

45. Of the students taking the state-mandated proficiency tests at your school during the 2005–06 school year, 

what percentage were at your school at the start of the school year? (Circle one response.) 

a. Less than 20 percent ........................................................................ 1 

b. 21 to 40 percent ............................................................................... 2 

c. 41 to 60 percent ............................................................................... 3 

d. 61 to 80 percent ............................................................................... 4 

e. 81 percent or more........................................................................... 5 

46. How many students enrolled in grades K–12 in your school in April 2006 had IEPs (individualized 

education programs) for special education? 

 _________ students 

RESPONDENT INFORMATION 

47. Which one of the following categories best describes your position at this school? (Circle one response.) 

State-certified library media specialist (LMS) ............................... 1 

Professional library staff member 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!
150 
151 

APPENDIX D 

DISTRICT PERFORMANCE REPORT 
152 
153 

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: 
154 

IMPROVING LITERACY THROUGH SCHOOL LIBRARIES PROGRAM 

FINAL GRANT REPORT 

Part I. Please provide the following information: 

A. Cover Sheet – see attached. Complete the cover sheet according to the instructions provided. 

• ED Form 524-B 

B. Executive Summary 

• Provide a one- to two-page Executive Summary describing the project and highlighting 

key accomplishments. 

C. Project Performance 

• Report on how you met each one of your project objectives, i.e., areas proposed in Use 

of Funds section and/or other applicable sections of your original application. 

D. Project Evaluation 

• Provide a copy of your program evaluation report. 

Part II. Please answer the following questions: 

SCHOOLS SERVED AND EXTENDED HOURS 

1. On what basis were schools selected for participation in the Improving Literacy through School 

Libraries Program? (Circle one response on each line.) 

 If your district has only one school, please check this box and skip to Question 2. 

 Yes No 

a. Percentage of all schools in the district were selected ...................... 1 2 

b. Percentage of all schools serving a particular grade level were served 

(please specify level) ____________________________________ 1 2 

c. The neediest schools based on poverty level .................................... 1 2 

d. The neediest schools based on lack of library resources................... 1 2 

e. The neediest schools based on those identified for improvement 

under No Child Left Behind .............................................................. 1 2 

f. Other (please specify) _____________________________________ 1 2 

2. Who participated in the decision regarding which schools to serve? (Circle one response on each 

line.) 

 Yes No 

a. District school library coordinator .................................................... 1 2 

b. District reading curriculum coordinator............................................ 1 2 

c. Superintendent(s) .............................................................................. 1 2 

d. Principal(s)........................................................................................ 1 2 

e. School library media specialist(s) ..................................................... 1 2 

f. Reading specialist(s) ............................................................................. 1 2 

g. Classroom teacher(s)......................................................................... 1 2 

h. Parent(s) ............................................................................................ 1 2 

i. Other (please specify) _____________________________________ 1 2 

3. How many schools were served under the grant? ______ Schools 
155 

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) 

 
156 

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) ___________________________________ ________ 
157 

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) 

 
158 

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 
159 

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 
160 

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 

below, indicate each grade level or grade span that was tested in reading/language arts. If you did not test a particula

year, write NA for the numbers who were assessed for that year and grade. For both the year prior to the grant and t

provide the number of students who were enrolled, assessed, and whose scores showed they met or exceeded the p

achievement for the assessment used. For the higher grades, if you do not specifically test in reading/language arts, p

for English instead. NOTE: Please copy these pages as needed, and fill out one page for each school served under the g

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.
161

APPENDIX E 

CASE STUDY PROTOCOLS 
162
Program Administrator at the District Level 163

School District: _______________________________ 

Program Administrator: _________________________ 

Title of Program Administrator: __________________ 

Site Visitors: __________________________________ 

Date: 

EVALUATION OF THE IMPROVING LITERACY THROUGH 

SCHOOL LIBRARIES PROGRAM 

Program Administrator at the District Level 

My name is __________________ and this is ______________________. We are visiting your school 

district as a part of the Evaluation of the Improving Literacy Through School Libraries Program (LSL), 

which is a study required under the No Child Left Behind legislation. We are examining promising 

practices related to the LSL Program that might be adopted by other school districts. We want to obtain 

details about the program in your district, how it has changed over time, problems you ran into during 

implementation and how they were resolved, and suggestions for districts that are considering adopting 

the program. Districts for our case studies/site visits were selected through several mechanisms, 

including nominations by experts in the field of school libraries, results of a previous survey of schools 

participating in the program, and the review of materials that districts submitted to the U.S. Department of 

Education. 

Responses to this data collection will be used only for statistical purposes. The reports prepared for this 

study will summarize findings across the sample and will not associate responses with a specific 

individual, school, or school district. We will not provide information that identifies you or your school 

district to anyone outside the study team, except as required by law. 

Do you have any questions before we begin? 

1. What services are provided as part of the targeted program (e.g., working with classroom teachers 

to select books and other materials that are aligned with the curriculum, using collaborative 

teaching by librarians and teachers, providing professional development, opening the library for 

extended hours, providing family literacy activities)? 

2. In how many schools are the services provided? At which level(s) (elementary/middle/high 

school) are the services provided? Why was this level selected? (If not all the schools at this level 

are served, ask why not.) 

3. Where are the services provided (e.g., school libraries, regular classrooms)? 

4. When are the services provided (e.g., during the regular school day, before school, after school, 

weekends, summer)? 

5. Who provides the services (e.g., school librarian, classroom teachers, aides, parent volunteers, 

other adult volunteers) How many people for each staffing category? 
Program Administrator at the District Level 164

6. What qualifications must program staff meet? What qualifications are preferred but not required 

(e.g., state-certified library media specialist, professional staff but not certified as a librarian)? 

7. Were program staff given any special training prior to beginning the program? If yes, please 

describe. 

8. What other staff development training has occurred as a part of the program? (e.g., methods of 

selecting books and materials that align with the curriculum, approaches for integrating educational 

technology into the curriculum, methods in which teachers and librarians can collaborate, 

motivating students to read, providing instruction in information skills to students, learning how to 

use online resources) Who participated? 

9. Who is being served this year by your LSL program (students, teachers, parents, others)? How 

many are being served this year (by category)? How many were served in previous years? 

10. Does the program focus on any particular subject areas? If so, which ones? Why were these 

subject areas selected? How are these subject areas incorporated into professional development? 

11. Does the program focus on specific skills? If yes, which ones? (e.g., use of advanced technology, 

information retrieval, critical thinking skills) 

12. Does the program involve collaboration between school librarians and other school staff? If yes, 

please describe. 

12. What equipment is used as a part of the program? What equipment was purchased as a part of the 

program (e.g., computer; CD player)? How is technology used as a part of the program? 

14. What resources are used as part of the program? Which of these resources were purchased as a part 

of the program (e.g., number of books purchased as a part of the program, serial subscriptions, 

video laser disc, DVDs, computer software)? 

15. Did school libraries in your district become connected or increase their connection to other libraries 

as a part of the program? (e.g., other school libraries in your district, school libraries outside your 

district, public library, community college library, college or university library) If yes, please 

describe. (e.g., computer access via the Internet or other networks to the catalog of other libraries, 

inter-library loans, coordinating regarding student research projects) 

16. What are the goals and objectives of the LSL program in your district? 

17. Who was involved in establishing the goals and objectives? 

18. How will it be determined that the goals have been met? How did you decide what criteria to use? 

19. Has the program been evaluated? If yes, describe the evaluation. What were the results? 

20. Is the program tied to district student test score results? If so, how? 

21. Why was the program developed? 

22. Was the development of the program based on a needs assessment? If yes, please describe. 

23. Who was involved in the development and planning of the program? Are they still involved in the 

program? If yes, in what ways? 
Program Administrator at the District Level 165

24. How has the program changed over time? Has it expanded to other branches or schools? Has the 

range of services been expanded? 

25. What are the next steps planned for the program? What are the long range plans? 

26. What problems were encountered in operating the program? How were they resolved? 

27. What factors would a district need to consider in adopting this kind of program? 

28. What is the estimated program cost? 

29. What other library and reading programs are provided in your district (e.g., Title I, Reading First, 

Early Reading First)? Are these programs coordinated with the LSL program? If so, how? 

30. Are the federal Comprehensive School Reform program or 21st Century Community Learning 

Centers program provided in your district? If yes, are these programs coordinated with the LSL 

program? If so, how? 

31. How could the LSL program provide more assistance to districts to improve school libraries? 

32. Verify extant data on the school district. 
Principal 166

School District: ________________________________ 

School: 

Principal:_____________________________________ 

Site Visitors: __________________________________ 

Date: 

EVALUATION OF THE IMPROVING LITERACY THROUGH 

SCHOOL LIBRARIES PROGRAM 

Principal 

My name is __________________ and this is ______________________. We are visiting your school as 

a part of the Evaluation of the Improving Literacy Through School Libraries Program (LSL), which is a 

study required under the No Child Left Behind legislation. We are examining promising practices related 

to the LSL Program that might be adopted by other school districts. We want to obtain details about the 

program in your district, how it has changed over time, problems you ran into during implementation and 

how they were resolved, and suggestions for districts that are considering adopting the program. Districts 

for our case studies/site visits were selected through several mechanisms, including nominations by 

experts in the field of school libraries, results of a previous survey of schools participating in the program, 

and the review of materials that districts submitted to the U.S. Department of Education. 

Responses to this data collection will be used only for statistical purposes. The reports prepared for this 

study will summarize findings across the sample and will not associate responses with a specific 

individual or school. We will not provide information that identifies you or your school to anyone 

outside the study team, except as required by law. 

Do you have any questions before we begin? 

1. How have you been involved in the development of the program? How have you been involved in 

implementing program activities? 

2. How does the program meet the needs of the school? Teachers? Students? Others? 

3. Why was the program developed? 

4. What resources have been provided for the program beyond those covered in the grant? (e.g., 

security guard at the front door of the school so the library can stay open for extended hours, 

scheduled meeting times for classroom teachers and the librarian, snacks for family literacy nights, 

finding parent volunteers to work with the program) 

5. What problems were encountered in operating the program? How were they resolved? 

6. What are the next steps planned for the program? 

7. What recommendations would you make to a school that is considering the adoption of the 

program? 
Principal 167

8. What other library, reading, or reform programs are operating in your school (e.g., Title I, Reading 

First, Comprehensive School Reform, 21st Century Community Learning Centers)? How are these 

programs coordinated with the LSL program? 

9. How have the students in your school performed on reading/language arts portion of the state 

assessments? (For each grade served by the LSL Program, try to obtain the scores for the past 3 

years.) 

10. Have you had any difficulty staffing the library? If yes, please describe. How was the situation 

resolved? To what extent are parent volunteers involved in the school library? In what capacity 

are the parent volunteers involved? 

11. How could the LSL program provide more assistance to schools to improve school libraries? 

12. Verify extant data on the school 
School Librarian 168

School District: ________________________________ 

School: ______________________________________ 

School Librarian: ______________________________ 

Site Visitors: __________________________________ 

Date: 

EVALUATION OF THE IMPROVING LITERACY THROUGH 

SCHOOL LIBRARIES PROGRAM 

School Librarian 

My name is __________________ and this is ______________________. We are visiting your school as 

a part of the Evaluation of the Improving Literacy Through School Libraries Program (LSL), which is a 

study required under the No Child Left Behind legislation. We are examining promising practices related 

to the LSL Program that might be adopted by other school districts. We want to obtain details about the 

program in your district, how it has changed over time, problems you ran into during implementation and 

how they were resolved, and suggestions for districts that are considering adopting the program. Districts 

for our case studies/site visits were selected through several mechanisms, including nominations by 

experts in the field of school libraries, results of a previous survey of schools participating in the program, 

and the review of materials that districts submitted to the U.S. Department of Education. 

Responses to this data collection will be used only for statistical purposes. The reports prepared for this 

study will summarize findings across the sample and will not associate responses with a specific 

individual or school. We will not provide information that identifies you or your school to anyone 

outside the study team, except as required by law. 

Do you have any questions before we begin? 

1. What services do you provide as part of the targeted program (e.g., working with classroom 

teachers to select books and other materials that are aligned with the curriculum, collaborative 

teaching by librarians and teachers, professional development, open the library for extended hours, 

family literacy activities)? 

2. Do you focus on any particular subject areas? If so, which ones? 

3. Do you focus on specific skills? If yes, which ones? 

4. What percentage of your time is spent on this program? 

5. Where are the services provided (e.g., school library, classrooms)? 

6. When are services provided (e.g., during school hours, before school, after school, summer)? 

7. Who received the services (e.g., students, classroom teachers, parents, library aides)? 

8. Were you given any special training prior to beginning the program? If yes, please describe. 
School Librarian 169

9. What other staff development training has occurred as a part of the program? (e.g., methods of 

selecting books and materials that align with the curriculum, approaches for integrating educational 

technology into the curriculum, methods in which teachers and librarians can collaborate, 

motivating students to read, providing instruction in information skills to students, learning how to 

use online resources) What staff were involved? 

10. How do you work with classroom teachers as a part of the program? 

11. Do you work with other school staff as a part of the program? Please explain. 

12. Do you work with parents as a part of the program? Please explain. 

13. What equipment/technology is used as part of the program (e.g., computer; CD player)? How is 

the equipment/technology used as a part of the program? 

14. What resources are used as part of the program (e.g., number of books purchased as a part of the 

program, serial subscriptions, video laser disc, DVDs, computer software)? How were they 

selected? 

15. Did your school library become connected or increase its connection to other libraries as a part of 

the program? (e.g., other school libraries in your district, school libraries outside your district, 

public library, community college library, college or university library) If yes, please describe. 

(e.g., computer access via the Internet or other networks to the catalog of other libraries, interlibrary loans, coordinating regarding student research projects) 

16. How were you involved in the development and planning of the program? What other groups were 

involved? In what way? 

17. How do you continue to provide input into the program? 

18. How has the program changed over time? Has the range of services been expanded? 

19. What are the next steps planned for the program? 

20. What problems were encountered in operating the program? How were they resolved? 

21. What has been achieved as a result of the program? How has the program benefited students? 

22. What factors would a school need to consider in adopting this kind of program? 

23. What other library or reading programs are provided in your school? How are the activities of the 

LSL program coordinated with the activities of these other programs? 

24. How could the LSL program provide more assistance to schools to improve school libraries? 

25. What is your educational background (e.g., degrees held, area of degree such as library science, 

type of certification)? 
Classroom Teacher 170

School district: ________________________________ 

School: ______________________________________ 

Teacher: _____________________________________ 

Site Visitors: __________________________________ 

Date: 

EVALUATION OF THE IMPROVING LITERACY THROUGH 

SCHOOL LIBRARIES PROGRAM 

Classroom Teacher 

My name is __________________ and this is ______________________. We are visiting your school as 

a part of the Evaluation of the Improving Literacy Through School Libraries Program (LSL), which is a 

study required under the No Child Left Behind legislation. We are examining promising practices related 

to the LSL Program that might be adopted by other school districts. We want to obtain details about the 

program in your district, how it has changed over time, problems you ran into during implementation and 

how they were resolved, and suggestions for districts that are considering adopting the program. Districts 

for our case studies/site visits were selected through several mechanisms, including nominations by 

experts in the field of school libraries, results of a previous survey of schools participating in the program, 

and the review of materials that districts submitted to the U.S. Department of Education. 

Responses to this data collection will be used only for statistical purposes. The reports prepared for this 

study will summarize findings across the sample and will not associate responses with a specific 

individual or school. We will not provide information that identifies you or your school to anyone 

outside the study team, except as required by law. 

Do you have any questions before we begin? 

1. What subject(s) do you teach? 

2. Do you work with the school librarian to select and evaluate library resources? If so, please 

describe. How are the materials connected to the curriculum? 

3. How often do you meet with the school librarian? 

4. Do you work with the librarian in curriculum development? If so, please describe. In what subject 

areas do you work together? 

5. Do you teach any curriculum units collaboratively with the librarian? If so, please describe. What 

was the subject area of the curriculum unit? What was the specific topic of the unit? What were 

your respective roles when teaching these units? 

6. Do you work with the school librarian in selecting technology for the library (e.g., computers, 

DVD players)? If yes, please describe? 
Classroom Teacher 171

7. Do you work with the school librarian regarding the use of advanced technology? If yes, please 

describe. In what ways are classroom teachers using the technology? How are students using the 

technology? 

8. Do you work with the librarian regarding specific skills such as information retrieval or critical 

thinking skills? If yes, please describe. 

9. How have your students benefited from these activities? Do particular students benefit more than 

others? 

10. Have the types of activities you have done with the librarian changed over time? If yes, how have 

they changed? Why have they changed? 

11. Have you had any training in connection with the kinds of activities you are doing with the 

librarian? If yes, please explain. 

12. What problems have you encountered? How were they resolved? 

13. What advice would you give to another teacher who is considering becoming involved in such a 

program? 

14. How could the LSL program provide more assistance to schools to improve school libraries? 
Classroom Teacher 172

School District: _______________________________ 

School: 

Site Visitors: __________________________________ 

Date: 

Length of Observation: _________________________ 

EVALUATION OF THE IMPROVING LITERACY THROUGH 

SCHOOL LIBRARIES PROGRAM 

Observation Form 

1. Where did the activity take place (e.g., classroom, school library)? 

– Classroom 

– School library 

– Other (please describe) ___________________________________________________ 

2. When did the activity take place? 

– During the school day 

– Before school 

– After school 

– During the evening 

3. Who was involved in the activity? How many people in each category? 

– Librarians ____________ 

– Library aides ____________ 

– Classroom teachers ____________ 

– Students ____________ 

– Parents ____________ 

– Other (please describe) ___________________________________________________ 

4. What types of materials were used (e.g., books, DVDs, computer software)? 

5. What types of equipment were used (e.g., computer, DVD player, automated circulation system)? 
Classroom Teacher 173

6. Describe the activity. 

– a. What were the adults doing (e.g., reading to students, providing instruction on searching 

for information on the internet)? 

–

–

– b. What were the students doing (e.g., selecting books and other materials for a report, 

talking to each other about something they had read)? 

–

–

– c. How were the students grouped (e.g., whole group, small groups, one-to-one 

instruction)? 

–

–

– d. Extent to which students and others were engaged in the activity? 

–

–

7. Overall impression of the activity 
Classroom Teacher 174
175 

APPENDIX F 

CASE STUDY SUMMARIES 
176 
177 

Site A 

Site A is a rural district in the north central part of the U.S. Altogether, 35 percent of the 800 

students are from families with incomes below the poverty line. The racial composition of the community 

is 69 percent white, 22 percent black, and 7 percent two or more races. In 2000, for residents aged 25 and 

older, 65 percent had earned a high school diploma or GED compared with 83 percent in the state. Most 

of the students have not traveled outside of their little community. 

The district’s three schools (elementary, middle and high) are all located on the same campus in 

different buildings. The elementary and middle schools were the focus of the LSL grant, and both met 

adequately yearly progress (AYP)1

 in the state’s accountability system in 2004–05 as did the district as a 

whole. One school library media center serves the elementary school and a separate library serves both 

the junior and senior high schools. The libraries share one professional, state-certified school librarian and 

one paraprofessional. 

Site A received an LSL grant for the 2005–06 school year. One goal of the grant was to work 

collaboratively with teachers and administrators to update the library collections to help support the state 

curriculum. In addition to involving the teachers and administrators in the needs assessment to help 

identify gaps in the library collection, the librarian asked the students about the kinds of books that would 

interest them. Consequently, according to the librarian, both the teachers and students feel they have an 

investment in using the library and the materials they helped select. This has contributed to helping 

motivate students to read. 

The LSL grant enabled the schools to purchase a substantial amount of resources. In consultation 

with the other members of the library advisory committee, the librarian devoted a significant amount of 

time to research and select materials and equipment that were appropriate and of high quality. Resources 

on generational poverty and student learning were consulted during this process. In the year after the 

grant, more students and teachers were using the library. 

Another program goal was to introduce flexible library scheduling and collaborative teaching. The 

school librarian began with two teachers to demonstrate how it works. The practice was successful in 

teaching specific units (e.g., how to write a research paper and biographies of famous scientists, which 

were both conducted with the eighth-grade science teacher, as well as regions and continents, animal 

kingdom, and plants, conducted with the third-grade teacher). Subsequently, two more teachers have 

requested that the librarian work collaboratively with them in their English classes. 

Site B 

Site B is a small Southern town in which 26 percent of the 3,100 students are from families with 

incomes below the poverty line. The community is 80 percent white and 15 percent black. All four of the 

district’s schools participated in the LSL grant, which was received in 2005. In 2005–06, the district and 

all schools in the grant met AYP. In addition, the high school won an award for improvement on the 

statewide test. 

During the grant year, the state was in the process of revising standards in English language arts, 

science, and social studies. Some materials purchased with LSL grant money were selected with the 

standards in mind. For example, a new standard involves acquiring knowledge of state authors and 

 

1

 AYP is an individual state’s measure of progress toward the goal of 100 percent of students achieving to state academic standards in at least 

reading/language arts and math. It sets the minimum level of proficiency that the state, its school districts and schools must achieve each year 

on annual tests and related academic indicators. 
178 

significant text created by them. Therefore, some biographies were purchased. Also, the primary school 

(grades pre-K–2) does not have textbooks for science or social studies. Under the LSL grant, the library 

purchased six-packs of books that cover the science and social studies standards and are used in guided 

reading lessons. The high school also targeted science and social as areas needing updating. 

The district has two literacy coaches that were originally funded under a Reading Excellence Act 

grant. Each Friday, the coaches select the books that will be used in guided reading sessions in grades 1–3 

in the following week. Each class receives six copies each of five books per week. With the purchase of 

additional materials under the LSL grant, this program was able to expand. 

Also benefiting from additional LSL-funded materials was the book bag program for 400 at-risk 

primary and elementary students. Each student is given a set of books in a resealable plastic bag to take 

home and read. The books are matched to the students’ reading levels. The school tries to provide a new 

set of books on the same day that a student returns one. Assistance with this program is provided by 18 

VISTA volunteers. 

More than 12,000 books, an average of four books per student, were purchased with grant money. 

Two paraprofessionals were hired for the year to help with processing the new books. 

Older students mentor younger ones in several district programs. Students enrolled in an 

Introduction to Teaching class at the high school were trained by the elementary literacy coaches to 

conduct guided reading sessions with students at the primary and elementary schools. The high school 

interns also provided one-on-one assistance with students as directed by the classroom teacher. 

Approximately 60 high school students visited individual classrooms to read aloud to large groups and 

discuss their reading selections. 

Forty high school students performed Reader’s Theaters for approximately 240 primary school 

students. The materials for this activity were multiple copies of plays written on the second-grade level. 

Each high school student read a part in the play, and one or two students served as narrators. The younger 

students were very attentive during the play, which they could read on their own at a later date. The plays 

were selected by the primary school’s media specialist and purchased with LSL funds. 

Site C 

Site C is a mid–size city in the south central part of the United States with a poverty rate of 27 

percent. The district has 44,500 students; the community is 56 percent black and 42 percent white. The 

district has 75 schools, but the LSL grant focused on the 11 high schools. In 2003–04, the year of the 

grant, the district made AYP in English language arts in all categories except students with disabilities. 

Improving reading literacy through the curricular area of science was the focus of Site C’s LSL 

grant, and the high school science supervisor served as the co-project director. The district had done 

similar projects with the English and social studies departments in the past. Science was chosen for the 

LSL grant in part because the high school science supervisor was responsive and available. 

The program used a commercial reading motivation program for students with little interest in 

reading. It began with a short test that provided each student’s reading ability range. Some of the students 

were surprised at how low they scored. Others scored higher than might be expected based on their 

grades. Students then read books and answered questions about them. The more difficult the book, the 

more points they received. A posttest was also done. Understanding the reading levels of the students has 

helped teachers tailor their lessons to student needs. 
179 

One project activity involved having students read both nonfiction materials and a fiction book on a 

particular topic and compare them. Teachers used these materials to demonstrate how science concepts 

are used properly and improperly and to help students assess whether the source of their information is 

reliable and reputable. Use of science fiction books has helped motivate students to read more. For 

example, students picked a disease, which they researched. To find a work of fiction that included the 

disease, the librarians and teachers used Novelist, a database of novels that can be searched by subject 

area. Also as part of the project, teachers used poetry with a scientific theme and biographies of scientists. 

Another grant purchase was a magazine subscription service and database that contain full-text 

magazine articles, including medical articles. The science teachers had not known about the database and 

were pleased to be able to access current information. 

Since completion of the grant, some science teachers have embraced the opportunity to collaborate 

with the librarians, and they have incorporated this new professional relationship into their routines. 

Teachers who had only worked with librarians sporadically before the grant now see the benefits of such 

collaboration. 

Site D 

Site D is a cooperative22 of 30 districts in the north central region of the United States, but only 

three rural districts were eligible for and participated in the LSL grant. The combined student population 

of the participating districts is 1,200, and the community is 97 percent white. The poverty rate of the 

largest participating district is 29 percent. Typically, there is one elementary, middle and high school in 

each district, and one librarian supports them all. In 2005–06, the three districts and all eight schools in 

those districts met AYP. 

The consortium received two LSL grants, for the 2004–05 and 2005–06 school years; the first grant 

focused on grades K–2 and the second, on grades 3–5. Collaboration between the librarians and 

classroom teachers was a component of the grant. One mechanism used for fostering collaboration was 

having the librarians and teachers attend professional development programs together to see where they 

could collaborate. Subsequently, librarians have co-taught research units and genre studies. 

Other professional development was done as a part of the LSL grant in Site D, sometimes in 

collaboration with Title I programs. Topics included how to select materials for particular grade levels 

and how to use personal digital assistants (PDAs). Librarians learned about general reading strategies, 

how to teach guided reading, and specific reading skills to be taught at each grade level. 

Site E 

Site E is a cooperative of 22 rural school districts in the northeastern part of the United States, only 

six of which met the poverty criterion for the LSL program. Combined, the six districts serve 5,100 

students in 14 schools. The population is 98 percent white, and the poverty level of the lead district is 29 

percent. The grant focused on six elementary schools, all of which met AYP in English language arts in 

2004–05, the year of the LSL grant. These schools are widely dispersed with some being as much as 100 

miles apart. 

 

22 A cooperative is a voluntary association of school districts who work together across a geographic area to provide educational 

services more economically than any district could offer by itself.
180 

One goal of the LSL program was to enable students in schools that are far apart to do joint 

projects. This was achieved by acquiring advanced technology. In addition, each library media specialist 

held a professional development day to demonstrate the equipment to classroom teachers. Projects that 

have been done with the equipment include book studies and virtual field trips. 

Site E built onto a previous project in which broadband connection, distance learning labs, and 

library/classroom audiovisual conferencing had already been established. The following equipment was 

purchased under the LSL grant: 

• Six computers for each library—which were needed to make all the other connections. 

• Cart-mounted videoconferencing units with large screen monitors, camera, microphone, 

cabinet and VCR—connected to each school district’s individual Ethernet networks. They were 

configured to communicate with each of the distance learning labs to enable audiovideo 

conferencing among libraries, the labs and classrooms. Remote access provides communication 

with any other Internet-accessible videoconferencing site. 

• Multipoint IP codecs—necessary to complete the connectivity and compatibility of the project. 

• Videoconferencing cameras—mounted on library computers and made the connection with 

partner distance learning networks to enable desktop videoconferencing. 

A variety of software programs were also purchased under the grant. These included interactive 

books that can read words from the pages to the reader when the word is touched with a stylus. Drawings 

in the background are also interactive when touched with the stylus. 

Site F 

Site F is in a community that is 99 percent Hispanic and is located on the fringe of a midsize city 

along the U.S.-Mexican border. The district serves 3,200 students, 52 percent of whom are from families 

with incomes below the poverty line. In 2005, the year of the grant, all seven schools in the district met 

AYP in English language arts. Percentage of all schools participated in the grant. 

About 55 percent of the students are English language learners. Some of the students are recent 

immigrants, and some had never been to school before. The district has a dual-language program, which 

is designed to help all participating students become fluent in both English and Spanish. These factors 

were taken into account in determining how to use grant money. 

In addition, a majority of the parents are first-generation Americans, have limited English 

proficiency, and come from cultures in which parents do not generally participate in the education 

process. Family literacy kits were purchased for each school so parents could improve their literacy skills 

along with their children. A two-day program was provided for parents to give them an overview of 

library resources, demonstrate how to obtain Internet access, and provide suggestions for reading to their 

children. 

The foundation of the program was a needs assessment, which was done with the assistance of a 

consultant. It brought together teachers, librarians, principals and administrators in an open dialog about 

what was most essential for the district’s students. Each school received resources based on its enrollment 

and the needs of its student population. 
181 

During the first month of the LSL project, each school also established a literacy committee and a 

professional development team. Literacy committee membership included an administrator; librarian; 

library aide; and reading, bilingual and special education teachers. The committees determined how the 

library needs would be addressed by obtaining input from classroom teachers and deciding which books 

to order and which to remove. 

The professional development teams worked with other committees to identify training needs, 

particularly since the libraries had acquired additional updated materials and resources. For example, both 

classroom teachers and librarians were trained on software and database usage. At the elementary level, 

the professional development teams included one teacher from each grade level, the librarian, library aide 

and one special education teacher. At the high school level, one representative from each content area also 

was included on the teams. School principals participated as honorary members. 

Additionally, librarians are represented on the curriculum development committees of each school. 

They attend meetings where they learn what lessons are planned for the upcoming weeks and can talk to 

teachers about library resources available to support their classes. 

Before the grant, the district purchased an estimated 1,900 new books per year and used five 

databases. During the grant year, 12,400 new books were purchased and 16 databases were available for 

use. Additional purchases included 120 audio books, 22 serial subscriptions, and one laptop and data 

projector per library. Many of the new books and materials are designed to encourage independent 

reading and come with tests and quizzes that are aligned with state standards. Since completion of the 

grant, some teachers are assigning more research projects because the libraries have more resources to 

offer. 

Site G 

Site G is a rural district in the north central area of the United States; its community is 98 percent 

white. The 200 students are served in three schools (one elementary, one middle and one high school), 

which are housed in separate areas of the same building. There are two libraries, one for the elementary 

school and one for the middle and high schools. Percentage of all schools participated in the grant and 

met AYP in 2005–06, the year of the LSL grant. Although the district met the 20 percent poverty rate 

needed to qualify for an LSL grant during the grant year, the current poverty rate of 17 percent means that 

the district no longer qualifies. 

One grant activity was the development of a Young Authors Program to foster interest in reading 

as well as writing skills and creativity. All students in the elementary and middle schools participated in 

the program, which was done collaboratively by classroom teachers and the librarian. First, students 

learned about writing books. Then, each student wrote his or her own book and illustrated it using either 

hand-drawn pictures or computer-assisted pictures such as clip art and scanned photographs. Older 

students used PowerPoint for their entire book. At the end of the school year, all students’ work was 

displayed in an open public setting as part of a Young Authors Festival. Staff members had wanted to 

participate in the Young Authors Program for some time but did not have the resources to do so until they 

received the LSL grant. 

Updating the library collections was one of the primary goals of the LSL program. During a needs 

assessment of the collections, staff members learned that 63 percent of their books had a copyright year 

before 1990. Current nonfiction books and materials were particularly needed. Under the grant, staff 

members got rid of almost 10 percent of the collection and added about 1,900 new books. The weeding 

and ordering process took at least five months. The librarian consulted with classroom teachers about 

which books and other materials to purchase. This process has increased the collaboration between 
182 

teachers and librarians on a variety of activities including lesson planning and teaching information and 

research skills. In addition, circulation has increased more than 20 percent since receipt of the LSL grant. 

Finding time for collaboration was a challenge at first. The teachers did not want to miss 

instructional time and preferred not to use substitutes to cover their classes. Ultimately, staff members 

donated their personal and planning time. The collaboration established under the grant has been 

continued beyond the grant year and, in some cases, has strengthened with time. The initial goal was to 

have eight collaborative projects, but the district exceeded this goal by having 11. 

Site H 

Site H is a rural district in an Eastern state; the community is 98 percent white. Altogether, 26 

percent of the 10,500 students live in families with incomes below the poverty line. The district has 26 

schools, but the LSL grant focused on the 15 elementary schools, 11 of which met AYP in 2004–05, the 

year of the grant. 

One district used several approaches to determine needs, including reviewing student test score 

data, interviewing teachers, assessing library circulation rates and reviewing inventories to find possible 

gaps in the resources. They found that 60 percent of the library collection had an average copyright date 

before 1993 and approximately 50 percent was in poor condition. Gaps identified included books for 

nonreaders and emergent readers as well as science and social studies resources. 

An early reading workstation was purchased for each school under the grant. For the workstation 

program, each school targeted 10 students who were nonreaders but were not considered to be special 

education students. Each student received 15–20 minutes of time with the program each day. Before 

beginning the program, students were given a placement test to determine where they would need to 

begin. Initially, tutors, who also serve as classroom aides, worked with the students, but once the students 

were familiar with the program, they could be self-directed. The program allowed students to work at 

their own pace and progress to the next level only when they had mastered the current one. Tutors could 

intervene if students were not progressing as quickly as expected. Altogether, 90 percent of the students 

participating in this early reading program attained grade-level reading. For some students, this 

achievement represented an increase of two grade levels. 

Before choosing this early reading program, the district reviewed research on many different 

programs. One school already had the workstation in each classroom and its reading scores were some of 

the highest in the state. Consequently, it was decided to expand the program. Since completion of the 

grants, several schools are considering purchasing additional workstations because they have seen the 

benefits and would like to serve more students. 

As part of the LSL grant, each school library was open approximately 2.5 hours per week for 

extended hours either before or after school. During these extended hours, some students conducted 

research using the resources available to help them to complete classroom assignments or meet their own 

interests. Others received additional instruction on the workstation. Also, many parents were recruited to 

be reading volunteers, who either read to the students or had the students read to them. However, 

extended hours benefit students who are driven to school more than those who rely on the bus. 

Once a month, each library was open for four hours in the evening for family reading night; this 

activity has been done two or three times a semester since completion of the grant. For approximately 20 

hours in the summer, the libraries were open for Camp Read-a-Lot, with planned activities targeting lowachieving and emergent readers. 
183 

Site I 

Site I is a small Eastern town with 3,700 students, 23 percent of whom are from families with 

incomes below the poverty line. The community population is 85 percent white, 8 percent black, and 4 

percent two or more races. All seven schools met AYP in 2005–06, the year after the grant. The LSL 

grant focused on the two middle schools. 

An experienced librarian who was new to the district provided the impetus to apply for an LSL 

grant. She arrived to an outdated library with four computers, a magazine collection beginning in the 

1970s, and a science book that said, “Some day man may go to the moon.” Under the grant, outdated 

books were removed, and each school added more than 3,000 books as well as audio books and 

educational DVDs. To promote interest in some of the new books, the librarians have held “book talks,” 

aired live to all students during morning announcements. By the end of the talk, students are often already 

in the library to check out the book. 

Twelve desktop, Internet-connected computers for use by students and teachers were installed as 

part of the LSL grant. Additional computers have been purchased since completion of the grant. Each 

library now has about 25 Internet-connected units, so an entire class can work on them at the same time. 

Also under the grant, the middle school card catalogs were put online and links were established to 

the local public library and the state university library. Interactive white-boards enhanced by LCD 

projectors have changed large-group presentations by the librarians to student-interactive experiences. A 

software program that provides individualized tutoring to students with reading difficulties also was 

purchased. 

Librarians and classroom teachers received professional development in an in formation problemsolving model as part of the LSL grant. It was observed in action during the site visit. First, an eighthgrade science teacher asked the class to write a question they wanted to answer. Then they went to the 

library to find the answer, using a minimum of three sources including at least one Internet source. The 

librarian and classroom teacher helped students who were having difficulty. In another class, the students 

were to write a summary of what they had learned. 
F-1