NATIONAL CENTER FOR EDUCATION STATISTICS

Technical Report September 1998

Evaluation of

Definitions and

Analysis of

Comparative Data for

the School Library

Statistics Program

U. S. Department of Education

Office of Educational Research and Improvement NCES 98-267
NATIONAL CENTER FOR EDUCATION STATISTICS

Technical Report September 1998

Evaluation of

Definitions and

Analysis of

Comparative Data for

the School Library

Statistics Program

Gretchen Dickson

Bureau of the Census

Carrol Kindel, Project Officer

National Center for Education Statistics

U. S. Department of Education

Office of Educational Research and Improvement NCES 98-267
U.S. Department of Education

Richard W. Riley

Secretary

Office of Educational Research and Improvement

C. Kent McGuire

Assistant Secretary

National Center for Education Statistics

Pascal D. Forgione, Jr.

Commissioner

The National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) is the primary federal entity for

collecting, analyzing, and reporting data related to education in the United States and

other nations. It fulfills a congressional mandate to collect, collate, analyze, and report

full and complete statistics on the condition of education in the United States; conduct

and publish reports and specialized analyses of the meaning and significance of such

statistics; assist state and local education agencies in improving their statistical systems;

and review and report on education activities in foreign countries.

NCES activities are designed to address high priority education data needs; provide

consistent, reliable, complete, and accurate indicators of education status and trends; and

report timely, useful, and high quality data to the U.S. Department of Education, the

Congress, the states, other education policymakers, practitioners, data users, and the

general public.

We strive to make our products available in a variety of formats and in language that is

appropriate to a variety of audiences. You, as our customer, are the best judge of our

success in communicating information effectively. If you have any comments or

suggestions about this or any other NCES product or report, we would like to hear from

you. Please direct your comments to:

National Center for Education Statistics

Office of Educational Research and Improvement

U.S. Department of Education

555 New Jersey Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20208–5651

September 1998

The NCES World Wide Web Home Page address is http://nces.ed.gov

Suggested Citation

U.S. Department of Education. National Center for Education Statistics. Evaluation of

Definitions and Analysis of Comparative Data for the School Library Statistics Program,

NCES 98-267, by Gretchen Dickson. Project Officer, Carrol Kindel. Washington, DC:

1998.

Contact:

Jeffrey Williams

(202) 219-1362
iii

FOREWORD

This report was prepared in the Governments Division of the U.S. Bureau of the Census by Gretchen Dickson. It

addresses issues of interest and concern to the National Center for Education Statistics and education policy makers and

researchers. An evaluation covering several surveys collecting 1993–94 school library data was conducted. The report

contains the results of the analysis of definitions and comparisons of data. 

The objective was to determine the accuracy of the data. The items evaluated were: the numbers of schools with library

media centers, the levels at which these library media centers are staffed, and the role librarians play in school decision

making. This report also contains notes on areas for potential improvement in data collection and processing.
iv

ABBREVIATIONS IN THIS REPORT

The following abbreviations are used throughout this report:

CCD—Common Core of Data—the annual census of basic information about the nation’s public

elementary and secondary schools. The CCD consists of three nonfiscal surveys, the Public

Elementary/Secondary School Universe, the Public Elementary/Secondary Education Agency

Universe, and the State Nonfiscal Survey, and one fiscal survey, the National Public Education

Financial Survey. The nonfiscal surveys provide counts of staff and students attending public schools.

The fiscal survey is described below.

LEA—Local Education Agency—the government agency administratively responsible for providing

public elementary and secondary instruction or educational support services.

LMC—Library Media Center Survey—the sample surveys of public, private and Bureau of Indian

Affairs schools for library media centers. This survey and the Library Media Specialist/Librarian

Survey are the main programs evaluated in this report.

LMS—Library Media Specialist/Librarian Survey—the sample surveys of public, private and

Bureau of Indian Affairs schools for library media specialists. This survey and the Library Media

Center Survey are the main programs evaluated in this report.

NCES—National Center for Education Statistics—the federal agency responsible for collecting

education statistics, including library statistics, on a national scale.

NPEFS—National Public Education Financial Survey—this survey collects school finance data

for the 50 state education agencies, the District of Columbia and the outlying areas under U. S.

jurisdiction. The survey is part of the CCD. 

SASS—Schools and Staffing Survey—the sample surveys of public (school and local education

agency level), private and Bureau of Indian Affairs schools for staffing, programs and policies.

TDS—Teacher Demand and Shortage Questionnaire for Public School Districts—the sample

Schools and Staffing Survey at the local education agency level for staffing, programs and policies.
v

TABLE OF CONTENTS

FOREWORD ...................................................................................... iii

ABBREVIATIONS IN THIS REPORT ................................................................. iv

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION ...................................................................... 1

Section 1.0 Objectives ...................................................................... 1

Section 1.1 Principal Findings ................................................................ 1

Section 1.2 Recommendations ................................................................ 3

Section 1.3 Background ..................................................................... 6

CHAPTER 2. LIBRARY MEDIA CENTERS ........................................................... 13

Section 2.0A LMC and SASS Surveys (Public, Private and BIA): Library Definitions .................... 13

Section 2.0B LMC and SASS Surveys (Public, Private and BIA): Library Counts ....................... 13

Section 2.0C LMC and SASS Surveys (Public and BIA): Library Estimates ............................ 15

Section 2.1 LMC and CCD State Nonfiscal Survey (Public): Library Definitions ....................... 24

Section 2.2 LMS and CCD State Nonfiscal Survey (Public): Library Definitions ....................... 25

CHAPTER 3. LIBRARY MEDIA SPECIALISTS AND LIBRARY AIDES ................................... 26

Library Media Center Surveys Compared to the Library Media Specialist Surveys ......................... 26

Section 3.0A LMC and LMS Surveys (Public, Private and BIA): Librarian State Certification

and Professional Definitions .................................................... 26

Section 3.0B LMC and LMS Surveys (Public, Private and BIA): Librarian State Certification 

Counts ..................................................................... 27

Section 3.0C LMC and LMS Surveys (Public, Private and BIA): Librarian Professional Counts ........... 31

Library Media Center Surveys Compared to Other Surveys ........................................... 41

Section 3.1A LMC and SASS Surveys (Public, Private and BIA): Librarian and Aide Full-Time 

and Part-Time Definitions ...................................................... 41

Section 3.1B LMC and SASS Survey (Public, Private and BIA): Librarian and Aide Full-Time 

and Part-Time Counts ......................................................... 42

Section 3.1C LMC and SASS Surveys (Public and BIA): Librarian and Aide Full-Time and 

Part-Time Estimates ........................................................... 43

Section 3.2A LMC and SASS TDS Surveys (Public): Librarian Definitions ............................ 55

Section 3.2B LMC and SASS TDS Survey (Public): Librarian Estimates .............................. 55

Section 3.3A LMC and CCD State Nonfiscal Survey (Public): Librarian Definitions ..................... 58

Section 3.3B LMC and CCD State Nonfiscal Survey (Public): Librarian Estimates ...................... 59

Library Media Specialist Surveys Compared to Other Surveys ......................................... 61
vi

Section 3.4A LMS and SASS Surveys (Public, Private and BIA): Librarian Classification 

of Main Assignment, and Full-Time and Part-Time Definitions ......................... 61

Section 3.4B LMS and SASS Surveys (Public, Private and BIA): Librarian Classification 

of Main Assignment Counts .................................................... 62

Section 3.4C LMS and SASS Surveys (Public and BIA): Librarian Full-Time and Part-Time 

Estimates ................................................................... 63

Section 3.5A LMS and SASS Surveys (Public): Librarian Role in Decision Making Definitions ............ 72

Section 3.5B LMS and SASS Surveys (Public): Librarian Role in Decision Making Counts ............... 73

Section 3.6A LMS and CCD State Nonfiscal Survey (Public): Librarian Definitions ..................... 76

Section 3.6B LMS and CCD State Nonfiscal Survey (Public): Librarian Estimates ...................... 76

CHAPTER 4. LIBRARY STAFF ..................................................................... 79

Library Media Center Surveys Compared to Common Core of Data State Nonfiscal Survey .................. 79

Section 4.0A LMC and CCD State Nonfiscal Survey (Public): Total Library Staff Definitions ............. 79

Section 4.0B LMC and CCD State Nonfiscal Survey (Public): Total Library Staff Estimates ............... 80

Section 4.1A LMC and CCD State Nonfiscal Survey (Public): Other Professional Staff Definitions .......... 86

Section 4.1B LMC and CCD State Nonfiscal Survey (Public): Other Professional Staff Estimates ........... 87

Library Media Specialist Surveys Compared to National Public Education Financial Survey ................ 90

Section 4.2A LMS and NPEFS Survey (Public): Library Staff Salary Definitions ....................... 90

Section 4.2B LMS and NPEFS Survey (Public): Library Staff Salary Estimates ......................... 90

CHAPTER 5. SUMMARY COMPARISONS ........................................................... 93

Section 5.0 Drawing Conclusions from the LMS Surveys Librarian Data .............................. 93

Section 5.1 States Ranked by Key Variables for Public Schools Across Surveys ........................ 93

Appendix A. Discussion of Principal Findings with Qualifications .......................................... 96

Appendix B. Description of Methodology ............................................................. 99

Appendix C. Sampling for the SASS, LMC and LMS Surveys ............................................ 101

Appendix D. Scope for the LMC and LMS Surveys -- Counts ............................................. 104

Appendix E. Scope for the LMC and LMS Surveys -- Procedure for Assignment .............................. 106

Appendix F. Counts of Library Media Center Staff Across Surveys ........................................ 107

Appendix G. Survey Forms ........................................................................ 108

BIBLIOGRAPHY ................................................................................. 149
vii

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1-1. School Library Data Comparison: Survey Respondents and Levels of Response ....................... 8

Table 1-2. School Library Data Comparison: Scope for the Library Media Center Surveys ....................... 9

Table 1-3. School Library Data Comparison: Scope for the Library Media Specialist/Librarian Surveys ............ 10

Table 1-4. School Library Data Comparison: Scope for the Schools and Staffing Surveys ....................... 11

Table 1-5. School Library Data Comparison: Summary of Intersurvey Item Agreement and Disagreement

for the School-Level Surveys ........................................................... 12

Table 2-1. Library Media Center Counts for Public Schools: The LMC Survey Compared to the SASS Survey 

for Linked Schools by Scope ........................................................... 17

Table 2-2. Library Media Center Counts for Private Schools: The LMC Survey Compared to the SASS Survey 

for Linked Schools by Scope ........................................................... 18

Table 2-3. Library Media Center Counts for BIA Schools: The LMC Survey Compared to the SASS Survey 

for Linked Schools by Scope ........................................................... 19

Table 2-4. Library Media Center Estimates for Public Schools: The LMC Survey Compared to

the SASS Survey by State ............................................................. 20

Table 2-5. No Library Media Center Estimates for Public Schools: The LMC Survey Compared to

the SASS Survey by State ............................................................. 21

Table 2-6. Library Media Center Estimates for BIA Schools: The LMC Survey Compared to the SASS

Survey by State ..................................................................... 22

Table 2-7. No Library Media Center Estimates for BIA Schools: The LMC Survey Compared to the SASS

Survey by State ..................................................................... 23

Table 3-1. State-Certified Library Media Specialists Counts for Public Schools: The LMC Survey Compared

to the LMS Survey for In-Scope Linked Schools ........................................... 35

Table 3-2. State-Certified Library Media Specialists Counts for Private Schools: The LMC Survey Compared

to the LMS Survey for In-Scope Linked Schools ........................................... 36

Table 3-3. State-Certified Library Media Specialists Counts for BIA Schools: The LMC Survey Compared

to the LMS Survey for In-Scope Linked Schools ........................................... 37

Table 3-4. Professional Staff Counts for Public Schools: The LMC Survey Compared to the LMS Survey for

In-Scope Linked Schools .............................................................. 38

Table 3-5. Professional Staff Counts for Private Schools: The LMC Survey Compared to the LMS Survey for

In-Scope Linked Schools .............................................................. 39

Table 3-6. Professional Staff Counts for BIA Schools: The LMC Survey Compared to the LMS Survey for

In-Scope Linked Schools .............................................................. 40
viii

Table 3-7. Part-Time and Full-Time Library Media Specialist/Librarian Counts by Type of School: The LMC Survey

Compared to the SASS Survey for In-Scope Linked Schools .................................. 45

Table 3-8. Part-Time and Full-Time Library Media Center Aides Counts by Type of School: The LMC Survey Compared

to the SASS Survey for In-Scope Linked Schools .............................................. 46

Table 3-9. Full-Time Library Media Specialist/Librarian Estimates for Public Schools: The LMC Survey

Compared to the SASS Survey by State .................................................. 47

Table 3-10. Part-Time Library Media Specialist/Librarian Estimates for Public Schools: The LMC Survey 

Compared to the SASS Survey by State .................................................. 48

Table 3-11. Full-Time Library Aide Estimates for Public Schools: The LMC Survey Compared to the SASS

Survey by State ..................................................................... 49

Table 3-12. Part-Time Library Aide Estimates for Public Schools: The LMC Survey Compared to the SASS 

Survey by State ..................................................................... 50

Table 3-13. Full-Time Library Media Specialist/Librarian Estimates for BIA Schools: The LMC Survey 

Compared to the SASS Survey by State .................................................. 51

Table 3-14. Part-Time Library Media Specialist/Librarian Estimates for BIA Schools: The LMC Survey

Compared to the SASS Survey by State .................................................. 52

Table 3-15. Full-Time Library Aide Estimates for BIA Schools: The LMC Survey Compared to the SASS 

Survey by State ..................................................................... 53

Table 3-16. Part-Time Library Aide Estimates for BIA Schools: The LMC Survey Compared to the SASS

Survey by State ..................................................................... 54

Table 3-17. Library Media Specialist/Librarian Estimates for Public Schools: The LMC Survey Compared to

the SASS TDS Survey by State ......................................................... 57

Table 3-18. Library Media Specialist/Librarian Estimates for Public Schools: The LMC Survey Compared to 

the CCD State Nonfiscal Survey by State ................................................. 60

Table 3-19. Full-Time and Part-Time Counts for Library Media Specialists/Librarians by Type of School: The

SASS Survey Compared to the LMS Survey for Linked Schools ............................... 65

Table 3-20. Librarian Classification of Main Assignment Counts by Type of School: The LMS 

Survey Compared to the SASS Survey for Linked Schools .................................... 66

Table 3-21. Full-Time Library Media Specialist/Librarian Estimates for Public Schools: The LMS Survey

Compared to the SASS Survey by State .................................................. 67

Table 3-22. Full-Time Library Media Specialist/Librarian Estimates for BIA Schools: The LMS Survey

Compared to the SASS Survey by State .................................................. 68

Table 3-23. Part-Time Library Media Specialist/Librarian Estimates for Public Schools: The LMS Survey

Compared to the SASS Survey by State .................................................. 69

Table 3-24. Part-Time, Itinerant or Long-Term Substitute Library Media Specialist/Librarian Estimates for
ix

Public Schools: The LMS Survey Compared to the SASS Survey by State ....................... 70

Table 3-25. Part-Time Library Media Specialist/Librarian Estimates for BIA Schools: The LMS Survey

Compared to the SASS Survey by State .................................................. 71

Table 3-26. Librarian Involvement in Decision Making Counts and Estimates for Public Schools: The LMS 

Survey Compared to the SASS Survey ................................................... 74

Table 3-27. Library Media Specialist/Librarian Estimates for Public Schools: The LMS Survey Compared to

the CCD State Nonfiscal Survey by State ................................................. 78

Table 4-1. Key Definition Differences for Library Media Center Staff: The LMC Survey Compared to the

CCD State Nonfiscal Survey ........................................................... 82

Table 4-2. Interpretations of Library Media Center Staff Categories for the CCD State Nonfiscal Survey ............ 83

Table 4-3. Coverage of Library Media Specialists/Librarians’ Income: The LMS Survey Compared to the

NPEFS Survey ..................................................................... 84

Table 4-4. Total Library Media Center Staff Estimates for Public Schools: The LMC Survey Compared to the

CCD State Nonfiscal Survey by State .................................................... 85

Table 4-5. Other Professional Staff Estimates for Public Schools: The LMC Survey Compared to the CCD Nonfiscal

State Survey by State ................................................................. 89

Table 4-6. Library Staff Salary Estimates for Public Schools: The LMS Survey Compared to the NPEFS 

Survey by State ..................................................................... 92

Table 5-1. States Ranked Across Surveys by Key Variables for Public Schools: The LMC Survey, the LMS 

Survey, the CCD State Nonfiscal Survey, the SASS Survey and the SASS TDS Survey ............. 95
1

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION

Section 1.0 Objectives

This report addresses the three issues of concern

expressed in the report “School Library Media Centers

in the United States: 1990–91. ” The issues were (1) 1

the numbers of schools with libraries, (2) the levels at

which these libraries are staffed, and (3) the role

libraries and their staff play in schools.

1. Counts and estimates of library media centers were

compared between the Library Media Center

(LMC) and the Schools and Staffing Survey

(SASS) surveys. This comparison was done at the

school, state and national levels.

2. For library staff, data comparisons were made at

various levels:

Counts at the individual school level:

The LMC and LMS surveys – 2

State-certified library media specialists

Professional staff members

The LMS and SASS surveys –

Classification of specialists/librarians 

The LMC and SASS surveys –

Full-time and part-time specialists/librarians

Full-time and part-time aides

Estimates at the state and national level:

The LMC and CCD State Nonfiscal survey – 3

Total library staff

Library media specialists

Other professional staff

The LMS and CCD State Nonfiscal survey –

Specialists/librarians

The LMC and SASS surveys –

Full-time and part-time specialists/librarians

Full-time and part-time aides

The LMS and SASS surveys –

Full-time and part-time specialists/librarians

The LMS and NPEFS surveys – 4

Salary estimates

The LMC and SASS TDS surveys – 5

Specialists/librarians

3. The role library media specialists/librarians play in

schools was compared. The items compared were:

the existence of a decision-making body reported

on the SASS survey to librarian involvement in

decision making reported on the LMS survey. This

was compared at the school and national levels.

See Section 3.5A for a description of librarian

involvement in decision making.

Section 1.1 Principal Findings

The principal findings are presented here without

qualifications or recommendations. For technical

qualifications of these statements, see Appendix A

“Principal Findings with Qualifications.” For

recommendations, see Section 1.2 “Recommendations.”

1. The LMC survey and the SASS both asked if the

school had a library. Most schools reported either

“yes” on both surveys, or “no” on both surveys.

2. The LMS survey asked for the respondent’s: (1)

state certification, (2) professional degrees and (3)

main assignment (i.e., librarian, teacher or

administrator). The LMC survey requested counts

of: (1) state-certified specialists and (2) degrees.

Data on the librarians’ certification, professional

status and main assignments were consistent

between the LMS and LMC surveys.

3. The SASS survey had instructions for reporting the

counts of staff assigned to more than one function

or school. The LMC survey did not have these

instructions. Analysis suggested the lack of

instructions for reporting employees assigned to

U.S. Department of Education, National Center

1

for Education Statistics, School Library Media Centers in the

United States: 1990–91 (Survey Report).

Library Media Specialist Survey 2

Common Core of Data Public School Districts 3

National Public Education Financial Survey 4

Teacher Demand and Shortage Questionnaire for 5
2

more than one function or school was causing states where the LMS survey estimates exceeded

over-reporting on the LMC survey. the CCD state nonfiscal survey counts, the

4. The LMC survey and the CCD state nonfiscal the ambiguous CCD state nonfiscal survey

survey both referred to the resources the library definitions, or an estimation issue for the LMS

uses. There were notable differences in the survey.

resources mentioned and the presentation. 

5. The LMC survey and the CCD state nonfiscal only. The NPEFS survey collected all librarian

survey collected counts of total library staff. The staff salaries in one category. For most states, the

LMC survey state estimates were higher than the NPEFS salary group was larger than the LMS

CCD state nonfiscal survey state counts. There survey respondent salaries. For states where the

were several possible reasons for this: opposite was true, a possible reason was the

C different units of collection

C different levels of reporting

C different staff definitions

C the small sample size

6. The LMC survey collected counts of state-certified

library media specialists. The CCD state nonfiscal

survey collected counts of specialists/librarians,

state-certified and nonstate-certified. The LMC

survey state estimates of state-certified specialists

were higher than the CCD state nonfiscal survey

state counts of all specialists/librarians. The

different units of collection were a factor. There

also could be misreporting between the categories

on one or both surveys. The LMC survey

estimation may be an issue.

7. The LMC survey collected counts of nonstatecertified librarians and other professionals working

in the library together in a category called other

professionals. Aides and clerks were counted as

other paid employees. The CCD state nonfiscal

survey had ambiguous definitions. It appeared the

intent was to collect some professionals and all

library aides and clerks in a category called library

and media support staff. A comparison of the

LMC survey other professionals plus other paid

employees counts to the CCD state nonfiscal

survey’s library and media support staff count

suggested the surveys were collecting these counts

in the intended categories.

8. The CCD state nonfiscal survey counted all

librarians, while the LMS survey was completed by

only the respondent. The CCD state nonfiscal

survey counts should be and were higher than the

LMS survey counts for the majority of states. For

condition was due to different units of collection,

9. The LMS survey collected salaries for respondents

inclusion of teaching income in the LMS salaries.

10. The LMC survey collected counts of state-certified

specialists, other librarians and other

professionals. The TDS collected counts of

6

specialists/librarians. The counts from the LMC

survey exceeded the TDS counts by an average of

69 percent. This may be due to the difference in

units of collection. It also may indicate either

many other professionals were working in the

library or an estimation issue for the LMC survey

data.

11. The SASS survey asked if the school had a formal

decision-making team including administrators and

teachers. The LMS survey asked if the respondent

feels included in decision making. For schools

with a team, more than half of the respondents felt

included. For all schools, with or without a

decision-making team, 67 percent of the librarians

felt included in decision making.

12. The LMS survey was useful for drawing

conclusions about the role of respondents in

schools. It was not useful for drawing inferences

about all library staff or how one state’s librarians

compare to another state’s. 

13. For each of the public school LMC, LMS, SASS,

TDS and CCD state nonfiscal surveys, the states

were ranked by the size of their estimates of

libraries and specialists/librarians. The rankings

were compared across states. The analysis

suggested the level of response (librarian, school,

The American Association of School Librarians’

6

position is that librarians must be state certified to be

considered librarians. Persons trained as librarians but

lacking certification are considered other professionals.
3

local education agency or state) makes a a. A targeted remail to produce more

difference. information should be considered. A letter

Section 1.2 Recommendations

The recommendations are based upon the findings.

Suggestions for improving the LMC and the LMS

surveys are grouped by topic. There are additional

recommendations concerning intersurvey consistency.

Scope a package to each school for the original and 7

1. Consider examining the 57 LMC cases where the

data were blanked and the school made out-ofscope because the school was out-of-scope on the

SASS survey. Theoretically, out-of-scope schools

on the SASS survey were selected for the LMC

survey sample because the schools closed during

the time lag between samples. It is possible the

schools were incorrectly reported as closed if staff

responded to the LMC survey. See especially

Appendix D.

2. The number of nonresponse and insufficient

response cases could be reduced for the LMC and

LMS surveys. The LMC survey cases are 8.2

percent of the public school library sample, 18.2

percent of the private school library sample, and

9.4 percent of the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA)

school library sample. The LMS survey cases are

8.9 percent of the public school library sample, 9.3

percent of the private school library sample, and

9.0 percent of the BIA school library sample. 

could be sent with the survey to these cases.

The letter would state that our records

indicate there is a library or librarian at this

school, as appropriate. The letter would ask

the recipient to direct the form to the

librarian to be completed. 

Also, mailing the LMC and LMS surveys in

follow-up mail outs may help.

b. A telephone follow up to determine the

scope of schools reporting inconsistencies

should be conducted. If a respondent says

there is a library or librarian on one survey,

but not on another, call. 

Through follow up, the analyst would learn

how the respondents are interpreting the form

or which characteristics of these schools or

staff are creating the discrepancies. The

analyst could then make form changes. Also,

the analyst could ask the respondent to

complete another form or obtain the essential

missing information over the telephone. 8

c. Some consideration should be given to

insufficient response cases that reported a

library, librarian and other data. Other

procedures would keep each of these

schools’ unique reported data. 

3. Collecting and tabulating data for volunteers

should be considered. Parent volunteers are

instructed not to complete the LMS form. For the

1,609 in-scope private school libraries, there were

953 in-scope librarians. Data from volunteers

would present a more accurate picture of the

private school library staffing situation.

Imputation

Consider reviewing the logical imputation procedures

for the in-scopes. For the current imputation procedure,

the SASS survey usually overwrites the LMC survey

which overwrites the LMS survey. Logic using the

opposite sequence should be developed and tested to

For the LMC survey (LMS survey), in-scopes were

7

schools with libraries (and respondents) and reporting at

least certain items. Out-of-scopes were cases where there

was no school or no library (or no librarian). If the school

did not meet the criteria for out-of-scope or in-scope, then it

was a nonrespondent. Nonrespondents included

nonresponses and insufficient responses: the school reported

a library (librarian), but the remainder of the survey

responses were insufficient for inclusion in the tabulated

data. Only in-scope schools and out-of-scope schools that

reported no library carried weights in the data file.

For the SASS survey, an in-scope school was in operation

and was an elementary or secondary school. Out-of-scope

schools were no longer in operation or were not elementary

or secondary schools. Nonrespondent schools included

nonresponses and insufficient responses. Out-of-scope and Those deemed essential to meet the criteria of

nonrespondent schools did not carry weights in the data file. “in-scope.” See Appendix D.

8
4

see if it would be an improvement. Also, the specific 3. Add instructions for allocating part-time staff with

problems mentioned in this report should be reviewed. more than one function. The instructions on the

See especially “other findings” in Sections 3.0B, 3.0C SASS survey for handling these staff work well.

and 3.1B. Similar instructions could be used. An alternative

Estimation

Consider reviewing the estimation procedures. Several

comparisons of the data to the SASS or CCD surveys

indicated possible estimation issues for the LMC and

LMS surveys. The pattern of reporting should be

reviewed further. See especially “other findings” in

Sections 2.0C, 3.1B, 3.4C, 3.5B and 4.0B.

There was a sometimes a lack of relationship between

a school’s weight and its reported data. Assuming a

direct relationship between the size of a school and the

size of its library, schools with the highest weights

should report the fewest personnel, i.e., the schools with

the highest weights should represent the smallest

schools. This was not always the case. 

As evidenced in this report, there were outliers that

should be analyzed further. For example, as shown in

Table 2-5, Michigan had an estimated 32.5 public

schools without libraries according to the LMC survey

but 278.3 according to the SASS survey. Three schools

(with weights of 123.8, 61.6 and 39.7) represented

225.1 of those 278.3. 

In addition, estimates for states with few schools also

were highly variable. For example, three Arizona

public schools reported no library on the LMC survey,

but six did on the SASS survey. All three of the

schools on the LMC survey were among the six

reporting no library on the SASS survey. These three

schools on the LMC survey weighted to 42.6, while the

six on the SASS survey weighted to 25.6. 

Definitions designed. The respondent-friendly survey form

Recommendations for the LMC Survey

1. Use the term library media specialist/librarian.

The LMS survey currently uses this term, while the

LMC uses library media specialist. 

2. Briefly define professional in Item 1b. Indicate if

professional means possession of a degree. If so,

also indicate the minimum level of degree. It also

might help to explain if the degree must be in

library science.

is to change the request for full time, three-quarters

time, half-time and quarter-time, to: full time in

the library; part time in the library; or part time in

the library and part time elsewhere in the school.

4. To relate the LMC, LMS, SASS and TDS survey

responses, it is necessary to separate the librarians

from the other professionals, and the clerks from

the aides. On the LMC survey, the staff categories

could be: specialists/librarians, other professionals,

aides, and clerks. A separate item would ask how

many of the specialists/librarians are state certified.

5. Strengthen the suggestion in the instructions that

the survey should be completed by the respondent.

6. Specify whether the television studio staff is

included in the library staff counts. 

9

7. Consider collecting data in full-time equivalents to

match the CCD and TDS surveys. An

alternative is to set criteria for the number or range

of hours for full-time and part-time staff. This

would make responses match more closely between

surveys and improve data comparability.

Recommendations for the LMS Survey

Consider collecting data in full-time equivalents. An

alternative is to set criteria for the number or range of

hours for full-time and part-time staff.

Forms Design

The LMC survey and LMS survey forms are well

includes:

C a booklet format

C simple language

Note that it was clear on the LMC survey that

9

computer personnel were included but not clear if television

personnel were included. For the CCD, it was clear that

television personnel were included but not clear concerning

computer staff. For the SASS survey, it was not clear if either

of these staffs was included.
5

C plenty of white space staffing followed these two sections, the accuracy

C good use of fonts

C use of check boxes where possible

C clear flow and path

C minimal instructions

C instructions placed with the items as needed

The surveys might, however, be even better received by

respondents with a few minor changes:

1. The cover letter for both surveys could generate

more interest by stating what is at stake. A

statement could be added relating that “Interest has

centered in general on the contribution school

libraries ought to make to the current education

reform movement and in particular, to their

potential contribution to the expanding role of

computer- and technology-based education .” 10

2. Rearranging the sections on the LMC survey might

enhance response. Basic considerations include:

sections should be placed in order of the easier

sections followed by the harder sections; more

interesting sections should be up front; and the first

section should tie in with the cover letter. 

The section on technology is a possible first

section because it is probably the most interesting.

It also links well to the above suggested cover

letter statement. It might, however, cause smaller

schools to think the survey did not apply to them.

The facilities section would make a good first

section because it brings up interesting topics like

television production areas and computers. It also

is general and simple to answer. It links to the

topics suggested above for the cover letter. It

would make a lead in for the technology section.

A brief, preceding table of contents would clarify

that several topics are covered by the survey.

3. There is another advantage to placing the LMC

survey facilities and technology sections up front:

these sections place the respondent in the frame of

mind of considering the entire library not just the

room where the books are kept. If the section on

of responses for staffing might improve.

4. On the LMS survey, a notice about confidentiality

should appear in the section about perceptions and

attitudes toward work. It is possible for attitudinal

questions to have a negative influence on response

rates. The effect for this survey has not been

studied.

5. Respondents are more likely to respond if there is

a perceived reward or if they feel involved in the

survey. A check box on the LMC and LMS

surveys to request a brief of the survey results

would be received positively. The statement “If

you have any questions. . . .” could be modified to

add “or suggestions. . . .” Bold type for this

statement encourages questions and suggestions.

Perhaps one of the remarks sections could be

modified to request suggestions. 

Additional Recommendations

This report evaluated the LMC and the LMS surveys.

There is a direct link, however, between these and the

other surveys in this evaluation due to their frames.

The CCD surveys are the universe, the SASS surveys

are samples of the CCD surveys, and the LMC and

LMS surveys are samples of the SASS surveys (see

Appendix C). Data items from all surveys are part of

the National Center for Education Statistics’ statistical

profile of the nation’s school library services. The

definitions of data items measuring library services

should have intersurvey consistency. The following

recommendations are intended to augment this

evaluation:

Recommendations for the SASS Survey

1. Modify the instructions as needed to treat

volunteers in a manner consistent with the LMC,

LMS and other surveys.

2. Specify whether the television studio staff is

included in the library staff counts.

3. Specify that the computer laboratory staff is

included in the library staff counts.

4. Add a brief definition of a library to the item

U.S. Department of Education, National Center asking if there is one. 10

for Education Statistics, School Library Media Centers in the

United States: 1990–91 (Survey Report)
6

5. Consider collecting data in full-time equivalents. schools are those operated by or under contract with

An alternative is to set criteria for the number or the BIA.

range of hours for full-time and part-time staff.

Recommendations for the CCD State Nonfiscal Survey

Revise the CCD nonfiscal state survey library staff of school libraries. Data from the 1993–94 LMC

definitions to coordinate with the LMC survey and the survey and LMS survey were compared to relevant

LMS survey definitions. For the CCD state nonfiscal items collected on the 1993–94 CCD and SASS

survey definitions: surveys. These surveys were conducted by the Bureau

2. Clarify the definition of professional. Education Statistics. The following list describes these

2. Review the references to, and significance of, the

resources worked with. CCD— the annual census of basic information about

3. Specify that computer resource staff is included in schools. The CCD consists of three nonfiscal

the library staff counts. surveys, the Public Elementary/Secondary School

4. Specify whether clerks are included in the library Education Agency Universe, and the State Nonfiscal

staff counts. Survey. The nonfiscal surveys provide counts of staff

5. Modify the references to volunteers for intersurvey nonfiscal survey is discussed in this report. 

consistency as needed. 

Recommendations for the NPEFS Survey NPEFS is described below.

If an objective is to determine the reasonableness of the LMC— the sample surveys of public, private and

salaries reported on the LMS survey, add a category to BIA schools for library media centers. This survey

the NPEFS for library staff separately. Note whether and the LMS survey were the main programs

library staff includes television studio staff and evaluated in this report.

computer laboratory staff.

Section 1.3 Background

This report is part of a series of evaluations on the

statistical programs covering library services in the

nation. These statistical programs cover public,

academic, school and special libraries, including federal

libraries and library networks. This report evaluates

two school library surveys.

The LMC and the LMS surveys are the main surveys

collecting school library data. The questionnaires have

three versions: public schools, private schools and

Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) schools. Public schools

are those funded and operated by a local education

agency. Private schools are owned privately but may

not be operated exclusively in a private home. BIA

11

Description of Surveys

This report compared data collected by several surveys

of the Census and released by the National Center for

surveys:

the nation’s public elementary and secondary

Universe, the Public Elementary/Secondary

and children attending public schools. Only the state

There also is one fiscal survey, the NPEFS. The

LMS— the sample surveys of public, private and

BIA schools for library media specialists. This

survey and the LMC survey were the main programs

evaluated in this report.

NPEFS— a component of the CCD. School finance

data are collected from the 50 state education

agencies, the District of Columbia and the outlying

areas under U.S. jurisdiction.

SASS— the sample surveys of public (school and

local education agency level), private and BIA

schools for staffing, programs and policies.

See the bibliography for sources of these surveys.

While essentially correct, this is a simplification 11

of the criteria for schools selected for the LMC and LMS

Indian School Questionnaires.
7

Levels of Data Comparison The evaluation was conducted as an operational review,

Data comparisons were done by type of school (public, manager’s perspective. The evaluation asked if the

private or BIA) as appropriate. Comparisons using the LMC and LMS surveys’ data could be reconciled to

CCD state nonfiscal survey and the NPEFS survey each other or to data from surveys requesting similar

applied to public schools at the state level. These information. Findings from comparisons can be used

surveys are universe counts. The SASS TDS survey to improve the surveys at the operational level for the

covered public schools at the local education agency next time.

level. This survey is a sample. The LMC, LMS and

SASS surveys were compared for each of the public, Comparisons were set up to detect hidden but

private and BIA school data separately at both the significant data characteristics. For example, if a

school and state level. These surveys are samples. school reported two librarians on one survey, did it

State estimates for private schools were not shown due different ways, such as school to school, state to state,

to a lack of statistical validity. Estimation was not or survey to survey, can reveal indications of problems

intended to create state estimates for private schools. or show consistency of reporting and estimation. Such

There was, however, a face validity found in the analysis can anticipate data user questions. Estimation

similarity between the public and private school state issues were referenced for further analysis by research

estimates. staff.

The comparison for librarian involvement in decision Appendix B describes the evaluation methodology.

making was limited to public schools. Only the public Appendix G shows copies of the survey forms.

school SASS survey inquired about the existence of

decision-making bodies. Format of this Report

Summaries of Sampling and Scope Selected data items from the LMC and LMS survey

series were analyzed. Comparison of the survey

Table 1-1, at the end of this chapter, shows the definitions to definitions for similar items on other

complete list of surveys. It describes the type of school, surveys is discussed. This is followed by data

the respondent, the levels of summary, and whether the comparisons for the items across surveys. Both school

survey is conducted as a sample or a universe. and state aggregate data comparisons are shown.

Appendix C summarizes the sampling universe and Estimation, imputation and scope are examined in

strata for the public and private LMC, LMS and SASS detail. Intersurvey item agreement and disagreement are

surveys. highlighted.

Appendices D and E describe the procedures for the

classification of scope for the LMC and LMS survey

schools. Tables 1-2, 1-3 and 1-4 show the results of the

classification of scope. State estimates were tabulated

for schools classified under one particular scope, that is,

schools meeting certain criteria. For school-level

counts, data for all schools were compared in this

report, regardless of scope. Situations where the scope

for a school differs between surveys are of interest in

this report.

Table 1-5 summarizes intersurvey item agreement and

disagreement for the school-level surveys. The data

item, surveys compared, school type and percentages

for agreement and disagreement are shown.

Viewpoint of the Evaluation

that is, the data were reviewed from the survey

report the same on another survey? Looking at the data
8

Table 1-1. School Library Data Comparison: Survey Respondents and Levels of Response

Survey Type of Level of Levels of Summary Sample or Universe

School Response

Library Media Center Survey - Public School public school school, state, national sample of schools from

Questionnaire (LMC) SASS survey

Library Media Center Survey - Private private school school, national sample of schools from

School Questionnaire (LMC) SASS survey

Library Media Center Survey - Indian School BIA school school, state, national universe

Questionnaire (LMC)

Library Media Specialist/Librarian Survey - public respondent school, state, national sample of schools from

Public School Questionnaire (LMS) SASS survey

Library Media Specialist/Librarian Survey - private respondent school, national sample of schools from

Private School Questionnaire (LMS) SASS survey

Library Media Specialist/Librarian Survey - BIA respondent school, state, national universe

Indian School Questionnaire (LMS)

Common Core of Data - State Nonfiscal public state education state, national universe of all states

Survey (CCD) agency

Common Core of Data - National Public public state education state, national universe of all states

Education Financial Survey (NPEFS) agency

Schools and Staffing Survey - Public School public school school, state, national sample of all schools

Questionnaire (SASS)

Schools and Staffing Survey - Private School private school school, national sample of all schools

Questionnaire (SASS)

Schools and Staffing Survey - Indian School BIA school school, state, national universe

Questionnaire (SASS)

Schools and Staffing Survey - Teacher public local education LEA, state, national sample of all LEAs

Demand and Shortage Questionnaire for agency

Public School Districts (TDS)

Abbreviations:

BIA = Bureau of Indian Affairs

LEA = Local Education Agency

SASS = Schools and Staffing Survey

Note:

All surveys are for the 1993–94 school year.
9

Table 1-2. School Library Data Comparison: Scope for the Library Media Center Surveys

Survey Scope

Schools

By Scope Total

Counts Estimates Counts Estimates

LMC In-scope 4,242 77,573.0 5,026 80,839.6

Public

Nonrespondent - reported a library 350 0

Nonrespondent- no response 63 0

Out-of-scope - reported no library 184 3,266.7

Out-of-scope - no response 187 0

LMC In-scope 1,609 19,311.0 2,535 23,428.8

Private

Nonrespondent - reported a library 360 0

Nonrespondent - no response 101 0

Out-of-scope - reported no library 262 4,117.8

Out-of-scope - no response 203 0

LMC BIA In-scope 127 141.4 160 152.4

Nonrespondent - reported a library 15 0

Nonrespondent - no response 0 0

Out-of-scope - reported no library 10 11.1

Out-of-scope - no response 8 0

Abbreviations:

BIA = Bureau of Indian Affairs

LMC = Library Media Center Survey

Notes:

For the LMC survey, in-scopes are schools with libraries and reporting at least certain items. Out-of-scopes are cases where

there is no school or no library. All reported data for the out-of-scopes were blanked except responses of no to “Does this

school have a library media center?” If the school does not meet the criteria for out-of-scope or in-scope, then it is a

nonrespondent. Nonrespondent cases are nonresponse and insufficient response cases. For these forms, the school has a

library, but the remainder of the survey responses are insufficient for inclusion in the tabulated data. Only in-scope schools

and out-of-scope schools that reported no library carried weights in the data file. Weights for nonrespondents are

redistributed to the in-scopes.
10

Table 1-3. School Library Data Comparison: Scope for the Library Media Specialist/Librarian Surveys

Survey Scope

State-Certified Respondents

By Scope Total

Counts Estimate Count Estimate

LMS In-scope 1,945 36,121.5 3,068 36,121.5

Public

Nonrespondent - responded “yes,” a librarian 11 0

Nonrespondent - no response 261 0

Out-of-scope - responded “yes,” a librarian 5 0

Out-of-scope - responded “yes,” a librarian with a 291 0

different main assignment

Out-of-scope - no response 555 0

LMS In-scope 953 8,182.6 2,348 8,182.6

Private

Nonrespondent - responded “yes,” a librarian 5 0

Nonrespondent - no response 213 0

Out-of-scope - responded “yes,” a librarian 0 0

Out-of-scope - responded “yes,” a librarian with a 376 0

different main assignment

Out-of-scope - no response 801 0

LMS BIA In-scope 82 94.7 144 94.7

Nonrespondent - responded “yes,” a librarian 1 0

Nonrespondent - no response 12 0

Out-of-scope - responded “yes,” a librarian 0 0

Out-of-scope - responded “yes,” a librarian with a 20 0

different main assignment

Out-of-scope - no response 29 0

Abbreviations:

BIA = Bureau of Indian Affairs 

LMS = Library Media Specialist/Librarian Survey

Note:

Reference to “librarian with a different main assignment” means the respondent is the librarian but considers another duty to be

the main assignment.

For the LMS survey, in-scopes are schools with libraries and librarians and reporting at least certain items. Out-of-scopes are

defined as cases where there is no school, no library or no librarian. If the school does not meet the criteria for out-of-scope

or in-scope, then it is a nonrespondent. Nonrespondent cases are defined as nonresponse and insufficient response cases. For

these forms, the school has a library and librarian, but the remainder of the survey responses are insufficient for inclusion in the

tabulated data. Only in-scope schools carried weights in the data file. Weights for nonrespondents are redistributed to the inscopes.
11

Table 1-4. School Library Data Comparison: Scope for the Schools and Staffing Surveys

Survey Scope

Schools

By Scope Total

Count Estimate Count Estimate

SASS Public In-scope 8,767 80,740.1 9,825 80,740.1

Nonrespondents 765 0

Out-of-scope 293 0

SASS Private In-scope 2,585 26,093.4 3,353 26.093.4

Nonrespondents 489 0

Out-of-scope 279 0

SASS BIA In-scope 152 153.0 160 153.0

Nonrespondents 7 0

Out-of-scope 1 0

Abbreviations:

BIA = Bureau of Indian Affairs

SASS = Schools and Staffing Survey

Note:

For the SASS survey, an in-scope school is in operation and is an elementary or secondary school. Out-of-scope schools are no

longer in operation, or are not elementary or secondary schools. Nonrespondent schools include nonresponse and insufficient

response cases. Out-of-scope and nonrespondent schools did not carry weights in the data file. Weights for nonrespondents are

redistributed to the in-scopes.
12

Table 1-5. School Library Data Comparison: Summary of Intersurvey Item Agreement and Disagreement

 for the School-Level Surveys

Data Item Surveys School Type Comparison between Surveys of Linked Schools’ Reporting

Compared

Percentage Percentage Not Reference

Disagreement Agreement Comparable Table

State-Certified Library LMC survey to public 4.2 79.9 15.9 3-1

Media Specialists/ LMS survey

Librarians private 9.6 66.5 23.9 3-2

BIA 8.4 74.7 16.9 3-3

Professional Library LMC survey to public 5.2 78.8 16.0 3-4

Media Specialists/ LMS survey

Librarians private 10.2 66.0 23.8 3-5

BIA 4.2 78.9 16.9 3-6

Library Media Centers LMC survey to public 0.0 88.5 11.5 2-1

SASS survey

private 1.1 75.5 23.4 2-2

BIA 0.0 94.4 5.6 2-3

Full-Time Library LMS survey to public 8.8 82.3 8.9 3-19

Media Specialists/ SASS survey

Librarians private 18.4 77.0 4.6 3-19

BIA 5.3 91.2 3.5 3-19

Part-Time Library LMS survey to public 25.9 63.3 10.8 3-19

Media Specialists/ SASS survey

Librarians private 17.4 70.0 12.6 3-19

BIA 25.0 56.3 18.7 3-19

Abbreviations:

BIA = Bureau of Indian Affairs

 LMC = Library Media Center Survey

 LMS = Library Media Specialist/Librarian Survey

 SASS = Schools and Staffing Survey

Notes:

Linked: Linked schools are those matching by identification number between surveys. The schools are on each survey’s mailing list, that is,

sample. 

Not comparable: Responses were not comparable due to nonresponse on one or both surveys.
13

CHAPTER 2. LIBRARY MEDIA CENTERS Related Report Sections

Section 2.0A LMC and SASS Surveys (Public,

Private and BIA): Library Definitions

Definitions and Items

LMC

The LMC survey library media center definition, which

appears at the beginning of the survey form was:

“For this survey, a library media center is defined Hypothesis

as an organized collection of printed and/or

audiovisual and/or computer resources which [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; it could be called a library, media

center, resource center, information center,

instructional materials center, learning resource

center, or some other name.”

The LMC survey then asked: 

“Does this school have a library media center?”

SASS

There was no definition for a library media center on

the SASS surveys. The SASS survey item was: 

“Does this school have a library media center or

library?” 

Discussion

The data for linked schools indicated that the presence

12

or absence of a definition for the library made little or

no difference. The data also indicated that the terms

“library media center” and “library” were

interchangeable from the respondent’s viewpoint. In

Section 2.0C, however, the data for all schools

presented a different picture. Perhaps the linked

schools used or were aware of the LMC survey

definition when completing the SASS survey.

See Sections 2.0B and 2.0C. 

Section 2.0B LMC and SASS Surveys (Public,

Private and BIA): Library Counts

Comparison

The LMC survey was compared to the SASS survey for

the counts of library media centers.

Each school’s responses were expected to be the same

on both surveys.

Principal Finding: There was high agreement

between the surveys for the reporting of libraries. 

Tables

Tables 2-1 through 2-3 compare responses for schools

on both the LMC survey and the SASS survey samples

(linked schools). The schools could be either in-scope

or out-of-scope.

Items

See Section 2.0A.

Results in a Nutshell 

For linked schools, there was a high rate of intersurvey

agreement. Direct disagreement between the linked

schools was nonexistent for the public and BIA schools.

There was little disagreement for the private schools.

The linked data suggested the presence or absence of a

definition for the library made little difference. 

The estimates in Section 2.0C, however, suggested the

opposite.

Basic Findings

Public School Findings

Table 2-1 contains all of the basic findings. 

The following table describes the LMC schools in

Table 2-1.

The LMC Survey Public Schools

Linked schools were those that matched by

12

identification number between surveys. The schools were on

both surveys’ mailing lists, that is, sample.
14

Scope Presence of a Library

yes no no Total

response

in-scope 4,242 0 0 4,242

nonrespondent 350 0 63 413 13

out-of-scope 0 184 187 371

Total 4,592 184 250 5,026

The following points can be deduced from Table 2-1.

Note that each total relates to the total line above.

C Of the 4,592 LMC schools with a library, 4,293

(93.5 percent) reported a library on the SASS

survey, and 299 (6.5 percent) had no response.

C Of the 184 LMC schools with no library, 155 (84.2

percent) reported no library on the SASS survey,

and 29 (15.8 percent) had no response.

C Of the 250 LMC schools with no response, 11 (4.4

percent) reported no library on the SASS survey,

and 239 (95.6 percent) had no response or were

out-of-scope.

Private School Findings

Table 2-2 contains all of the basic findings. 

The following table describes the LMC schools in

Table 2-2.

The LMC Survey Private Schools

Scope Presence of a Library

yes no no Total

response

in-scope 1,609 0 0 1,609

nonrespondent 360 0 101 461 13

out-of-scope 0 262 203 465

Total 1,969 262 304 2,535

The following points can be deduced from Table 2-2.

Note that each total relates to the total line above.

C Of the 1,969 LMC schools with a library, 1,732

(88.0 percent) reported a library on the SASS

survey, 28 (1.4 percent) reported no library, and

209 (10.6 percent) had no response.

C Of the 262 LMC schools with no library, 182 (69.5

percent) reported no library on the SASS survey,

and 80 (30.5 percent) had no response.

C Of the 304 LMC schools with no response, one

reported a library, (0.3 percent) six (1.9 percent)

reported no library on the SASS survey, and 297

( 97.7 percent) had no response or were out-ofscope.

BIA School Findings

Table 2-3 contains all of the basic findings. 

The following table describes the LMC schools in

Table 2-3.

The LMC Survey BIA Schools

Scope Presence of a Library

yes no no Total

response

in-scope 127 0 0 127

nonrespondent 15 0 0 15 13

Out-of-scope 0 10 8 18

Total 142 10 8 160

The following points can be deduced from Table 2-3.

Note that each total relates to the total line above.

C Of the 142 LMC schools with a library, 141

reported a library on the SASS survey, and one

had no response.

C Of the 10 LMC schools with no library, all

reported no library on the SASS survey. 

C Of the eight LMC schools with no response, one

reported no library on the SASS survey, and the

remaining seven were out-of-scope.

Includes partial respondents. 13
15

Intersurvey Agreement and Disagreement Comparison

Intersurvey Agreement

There was a high rate of intersurvey agreement for all

schools. There were 4,448 (88.5 percent of all LMC Hypothesis

survey public schools) public school cases that clearly

agreed in response between surveys. For private

schools, there were 1,914 (75.5 percent) cases where

the responses on the two surveys clearly agreed. There

were 151 (94.4 percent) BIA schools where the

responses on the two surveys clearly agreed.

Intersurvey Disagreement 

Direct disagreement (i.e., one said “yes,” the other

“no”) between the schools was nonexistent for the

public and BIA schools, and almost nonexistent for the

private schools. There were 28 (1.1 percent of all

private LMC survey schools) private school cases

where the LMC survey reported a library, while the

SASS survey did not.

Other Findings

Classification of Scope

The processing specifications required that if the SASS

survey classified the school as out-of-scope, then the

LMC survey was made out-of-scope. There were 57

cases where this occurred. Because the data were

blanked for out-of-scopes, the data for these cases were

not included in these comparisons.

Imputation

If the SASS survey school had no response to the

question inquiring about the presence of a library, the

LMC survey was used to impute for that item . This

14

occurred for in-scopes, but not for nonrespondents .

15

Thus, the information that 299 public, 209 private and

one BIA nonrespondent LMC survey schools reported

a library was not used for imputation to the SASS

survey nonrespondents.

Section 2.0C LMC and SASS Surveys (Public and

BIA): Library Estimates

The LMC survey was compared to the SASS survey for

estimates of libraries. 

The estimates between surveys should be equal for the

public and BIA schools.

Principal Findings: There was high agreement

between the surveys for reporting the presence of

libraries. The reporting between surveys for schools

with no library, however, was less consistent.

Tables

Tables 2-4 through 2-7 show the estimates of libraries

for the LMC and SASS surveys by state and by type of

school. 

Items

See Section 2.0.

Results in a Nutshell

The estimates were in high agreement for schools

reporting a library. 

Some LMC survey state estimates of schools reporting

no library were notably lower than the SASS survey

estimates. If the estimates alone were examined, the

conclusion would be the lack of a library definition on

the SASS survey is causing confusion. Findings in

Section 2.0B, which examined counts, indicated the

opposite.

Basic Findings

The reporting for schools with libraries showed high

agreement between the LMC survey and the SASS

survey. For the public schools, estimates were close

for all states with a national LMC survey/SASS survey

ratio of 100 percent. For the BIA schools, the ratio was

100 percent.

For schools reporting no libraries, the LMC survey

national estimate was 77 percent of the SASS survey

estimate for the public schools and 90 percent for the

BIA schools. The state ratios ranged from 0.12 to 2.33 SASS Specification Memorandum 94–32 14

Includes partial respondents. 15
16

for the public schools and 0.80 to 1.10 for the BIA survey/SASS survey ratio of 0.12. Michigan had an

schools. estimated 32.5 schools without libraries according to

Other Findings the SASS survey. Three schools with weights of

Estimation

The variances were notable for the data of public

schools reporting no library. Michigan had a LMC 

the LMC survey but approximately 278.3 according to

123.8, 61.6 and 39.7 represented 225.1 of the 278.3

estimate. 

Data for states with small estimates also was highly

variable. For example, three Arizona public schools on

the LMC survey reported no library, and six on the

SASS survey. All three of the schools on the LMC

survey were among the six reporting no library media

center on the SASS survey. These three schools on the

LMC survey weighted to 42.6, while the six on the

SASS survey weighted to 25.6. 
17

Table 2-1. Library Media Center Counts for Public Schools:

The Library Media Center Survey Compared to the Schools and Staffing Survey 

for Linked Schools by Scope, 1993-94

LMC Survey Response SASS Survey Response Count of LMC Survey Percent of Total

Schools Count

In-scope: In-scope:

Yes Yes 3,948 78.6

Yes No 0 0.0

In-scope: Nonrespondent:

Yes No response 294 5.8

Nonrespondent: In-scope: 

Yes Yes 345 6.8

Yes No 0 0.0

Nonrespondent: Nonrespondent:

Yes No response 5 0.1

No response No response 63 1.3

Out-of-scope: In-scope:

No Yes 0 0.0

No No 155 3.1

No response No 11 0.2

Out-of-scope: Nonrespondent:

No No response 29 0.6

No response No response 7 0.1

Out-of-scope: Out-of-scope:

No response No response 169 3.4

Total Schools 5,026 100.0

Abbreviations:

LMC = Library Media Center Survey SASS = Schools and Staffing Survey

Notes:

Linked = Linked schools are those that match by identification number between surveys. The schools are on both surveys’ mailing lists, that

is, sample. 

In-scope = For the LMC survey, the school reported a library and sufficiently completed the form. For the SASS survey, the school is in

operation and is an elementary or secondary school.

Nonrespondent = For the LMC survey, the school has a library, but the remainder of the survey responses are insufficient for inclusion in the tabulated

data. For the SASS survey, the school meets the in-scope criteria, but the remainder of the survey responses are insufficient for

inclusion in the tabulated data.

Out-of-scope = For the LMC survey, there is no school or no library. For the SASS survey, the school is not in operation or is not an elementary

or secondary school.

Source: 1993-94 Library Media Center Survey data file (U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics)

1993-94 Schools and Staffing Survey data file (U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics)
18

Table 2-2. Library Media Center Counts for Private Schools:

The Library Media Center Survey Compared to the Schools and Staffing Survey 

for Linked Schools by Scope, 1993-94

LMC Survey Response SASS Survey Response Count of LMC Survey Schools Percent of Total Count

In-scope: In-scope:

Yes Yes 1,392 54.9

Yes No 27 1.1

In-scope: Nonrespondent:

Yes Yes 1 0.0

Yes No response 189 7.5

Nonrespondent: In-scope: 

Yes Yes 339 13.4

Yes No 1 0.0

No response Yes 1 0.0

No response No 4 0.2

Nonrespondent: Nonrespondent:

Yes No response 20 0.8

No response No response 96 3.8

Out-of-scope: In-scope: 

No Yes 0 0.0

No No 182 7.2

No response No 2 0.0

Out-of-scope: Nonrespondent:

No No response 80 3.2

No response No response 6 0.2

Out-of-scope: Out-of-scope:

No response No response 195 7.7

Total Schools 2,535 100.0

Abbreviations:

LMC = Library Media Center Survey SASS = Schools and Staffing Survey

Notes:

Linked = Linked schools are those that match by identification number between surveys. The schools are on both surveys’ mailing lists, that

is, sample. 

In-scope = For the LMC survey, the school reported a library and sufficiently completed the form. For the SASS survey, the school is in

operation and is an elementary or secondary school. 

Nonrespondent = For the LMC survey, the school has a library, but the remainder of the survey responses are insufficient for inclusion in the tabulated

data. For the SASS survey, the school meets the in-scope criteria, but the remainder of the survey responses are insufficient for

inclusion in the tabulated data.

Out-of-scope = For the LMC survey, there is no school or no library. For the SASS survey, the school is not in operation or is not an elementary

or secondary school.

Source: 1993-94 Library Media Center Survey data file (U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics)
19

1993-94 Schools and Staffing Survey data file (U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics)
20

Table 2-3. Library Media Center Counts for Bureau of Indian Affairs Schools:

The Library Media Center Survey Compared to the Schools and Staffing Survey 

for Linked Schools by Scope, 1993-94

LMC Survey Response SASS Survey Response Count of LMC Survey Schools Percent of Total Count

In-scope: In-scope:

Yes Yes 126 78.8

Yes No 0 0.0

In-scope: Nonrespondent:

Yes No response 1 0.1

Nonrespondent: In-scope: 

Yes Yes 15 9.4

Yes No 0 0.0

Out-of-scope: In-scope: 

No Yes 0 0.0

No No 10 6.3

No response No 1 0.1

Out-of-scope: Out-of-scope:

No response No response 7 4.4

Total Schools 160 100.0

Abbreviations:

LMC = Library Media Center Survey SASS = Schools and Staffing Survey

Notes:

Linked = Linked schools are those that match by identification number between surveys. The schools are on both surveys’ mailing lists, that

is, sample. 

In-scope = For the LMC survey, the school reported a library and sufficiently completed the form. For the SASS survey, the school is in

operation and is an elementary or secondary school . . . 

Nonrespondent = For the LMC survey, the school has a library, but the remainder of the survey responses are insufficient for inclusion in the tabulated

data. For the SASS survey, the school meets the in-scope criteria, but the remainder of the survey responses are insufficient for

inclusion in the tabulated data

Out-of-scope = For the LMC survey, there is no school or no library. For the SASS survey, the school is not in operation or is not an elementary

or secondary school.

Source: 1993-94 Library Media Center Survey data file (U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics)

1993-94 Schools and Staffing Survey data file (U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics)
21

Table 2-4. Library Media Center Estimates for Public Schools:

The Library Media Center Survey Compared to the Schools and Staffing Survey 

by State, 1993-94

By Alphabetical State Order By Descending LMC/SASS Ratio

LMC Survey SASS Survey LMC/SASS LMC/SASS

(C1) (C2) (C1/C2) (C1/C2)

United States 77,573.0 77,216.9 1.00 United States 1.00

Alabama 1,273.8 1,240.4 1.03 Michigan 1.08

Alaska 451.5 428.3 1.05 Alaska 1.05

Arizona 1,018.3 1,031.4 0.99 Kansas 1.03

Arkansas 1,060.0 1,084.0 0.98 Idaho 1.03

California 6,938.9 6,871.2 1.01 Tennessee 1.03

Colorado 1,294.5 1,303.5 0.99 New Mexico 1.03

Connecticut 898.6 912.5 0.98 Alabama 1.03

Delaware 156.2 158.8 0.98 Washington 1.02

District of Columbia 151.7 152.9 0.99 Massachusetts 1.02

Florida 2,261.4 2,278.0 0.99 Kentucky 1.02

Georgia 1,723.2 1,723.2 1.00 Montana 1.02

Hawaii 228.8 228.7 1.00 Missouri 1.02

Idaho 560.6 542.9 1.03 South Carolina 1.01

Illinois 3,701.7 3,665.8 1.01 New York 1.01

Indiana 1,826.1 1,827.8 1.00 California 1.01

Iowa 1,490.1 1,490.3 1.00 Illinois 1.01

Kansas 1,450.2 1,403.7 1.03 Pennsylvania 1.01

Kentucky 1,327.4 1,301.5 1.02 Virginia 1.01

Louisiana 1,362.2 1,370.3 0.99 Wisconsin 1.01

Maine 647.2 666.0 0.97 South Dakota 1.01

Maryland 1,185.3 1,185.3 1.00 Rhode Island 1.01

Massachusetts 1,509.0 1,476.4 1.02 North Carolina 1.00

Michigan 3,122.2 2,880.8 1.08 Hawaii 1.00

Minnesota 1,413.8 1,443.0 0.98 Vermont 1.00

Mississippi 888.8 895.8 0.99 Maryland 1.00

Missouri 2,064.5 2,032.8 1.02 Georgia 1.00

Montana 896.1 881.2 1.02 Iowa 1.00

Nebraska 1,274.7 1,277.4 1.00 Indiana 1.00

Nevada 346.9 354.8 0.98 Nebraska 1.00

New Hampshire 412.4 407.3 1.01 Ohio 1.00

New Jersey 2,026.5 2,066.8 0.98 Oregon 1.00

New Mexico 646.5 628.4 1.03 Louisiana 0.99

New York 3,761.9 3,717.2 1.01 Colorado 0.99

North Carolina 1,892.4 1,885.6 1.00 Florida 0.99

North Dakota 521.4 531.7 0.98 District of Columbia 0.99

Ohio 3,535.4 3,548.8 1.00 Mississippi 0.99

Oklahoma 1,675.5 1,694.7 0.99 Oklahoma 0.99

Oregon 1,176.5 1,181.0 1.00 Arizona 0.99

Pennsylvania 2,976.5 2,947.8 1.01 Connecticut 0.98

Rhode Island 279.6 277.8 1.01 Wyoming 0.98

South Carolina 1,065.4 1,052.4 1.01 Delaware 0.98

South Dakota 651.1 646.5 1.01 North Dakota 0.98

Tennessee 1,521.8 1,475.2 1.03 New Jersey 0.98

Texas 5,440.1 5,578.6 0.98 Minnesota 0.98

Utah 634.7 651.4 0.97 Arkansas 0.98

Vermont 318.2 318.2 1.00 Nevada 0.98

Virginia 1,647.1 1,634.1 1.01 Texas 0.98

Washington 1,746.7 1,705.0 1.02 Utah 0.97

West Virginia 722.2 769.9 0.94 Maine 0.97

Wisconsin 2,008.2 1,994.0 1.01 West Virginia 0.94

Wyoming 389.4 395.7 0.98 New Hampshire 0.85

Abbreviations:

LMC = Library Media Center SASS = Schools and Staffing Survey

Source:

1993-94 Library Media Center Survey data file (U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics)

1993-94 Schools and Staffing Survey data file (U. S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics)
22

Table 2-5. No Library Media Center Estimates for Public Schools:

The Library Media Center Survey Compared to the Schools and Staffing Survey 

by State, 1993-94

By Alphabetical State Order By Descending LMC/SASS Ratio

LMC Survey SASS Survey LMC/SASS LMC/SASS

(C1) (C2) (C1/C2) (C1/C2)

United States 2,968.9 3,832.7 0.77 United States 0.77

Alabama 0.0 33.3 0.00 Oregon 2.33

Alaska 26.6 48.3 0.55 Nevada 1.85

Arizona 42.6 25.6 1.66 Arizona 1.66

Arkansas 24.0 0.0 0.00 Texas 1.45

California 364.8 447.7 0.81 Wyoming 1.42

Colorado 31.5 25.2 1.25 West Virginia 1.37

Connecticut 29.3 51.4 0.57 Maine 1.34

Delaware 13.1 10.5 1.25 New Jersey 1.31

District of Columbia 8.0 6.8 1.17 Oklahoma 1.28

Florida 28.0 69.6 0.40 Colorado 1.25

Hawaii 5.6 5.7 0.99 Delaware 1.25

Idaho 12.1 29.7 0.41 North Dakota 1.24

Illinois 182.6 218.5 0.84 District of Columbia 1.17

Indiana 42.6 40.9 1.04 Nebraska 1.15

Iowa 27.4 27.3 1.00 Mississippi 1.11

Kansas 0.0 46.4 0.00 Ohio 1.11

Kentucky 0.0 25.9 0.00 Louisiana 1.11

Louisiana 84.0 76.0 1.11 Indiana 1.04

Maine 74.0 55.3 1.34 Iowa 1.00

Massachusetts 169.1 212.4 0.80 Hawaii 0.99

Michigan 32.5 278.3 0.12 Utah 0.95

Minnesota 44.1 49.2 0.89 Minnesota 0.89

Mississippi 68.4 61.4 1.11 Rhode Island 0.89

Missouri 18.0 49.6 0.36 Pennsylvania 0.84

Montana 0.0 16.0 0.00 Illinois 0.84

Nebraska 21.5 18.7 1.15 North Carolina 0.83

Nevada 19.1 10.3 1.85 California 0.81

New Hampshire 16.5 37.7 0.44 Virginia 0.80

New Jersey 168.6 128.3 1.31 Massachusetts 0.80

New Mexico 15.0 34.3 0.44 New York 0.76

New York 141.8 186.5 0.76 South Dakota 0.63

North Carolina 34.7 41.8 0.83 Washington 0.59

North Dakota 53.8 43.4 1.24 Connecticut 0.57

Ohio 96.8 87.2 1.11 Alaska 0.55

Oklahoma 87.8 68.6 1.28 South Carolina 0.55

Oregon 7.5 3.2 2.33 New Mexico 0.44

Pennsylvania 152.0 180.7 0.84 New Hampshire 0.44

Rhode Island 15.4 17.2 0.89 Idaho 0.41

South Carolina 15.6 28.6 0.55 Florida 0.40

South Dakota 9.5 14.9 0.63 Missouri 0.36

Tennessee 0.0 46.6 0.00 Wisconsin 0.27

Texas 449.5 311.0 1.45 Michigan 0.12

Utah 21.8 22.8 0.95 Kansas 0.00

Virginia 51.2 64.2 0.80 Arkansas 0.00

Washington 60.1 101.3 0.59 Alabama 0.00

West Virginia 176.0 128.3 1.37 Tennessee 0.00

Wisconsin 5.4 19.8 0.27 Montana 0.00

Wyoming 21.4 15.1 1.42 Kentucky 0.00

Abbreviations:

LMC = Library Media Center SASS = Schools and Staffing Survey

Source:

1993-94 Library Media Center Survey data file (U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics)

1993-94 Schools and Staffing Survey data file (U. S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics)
23

Table 2-6. Library Media Center Estimates for Bureau of Indian Affairs Schools:

The Library Media Center Survey Compared to the Schools and Staffing Survey 

by State, 1993-94

By Alphabetical State Order By Descending LMC/SASS Ratio

LMC Survey SASS Survey LMC/SASS LMC/SASS

(C1) (C2) (C1/C2) (C1/C2)

United States 141.4 141.9 1.00 United States 1.00

Arizona 44.3 48.1 0.92 Montana 2.10

California 1.4 1.0 1.36 California 1.37

Florida 1.2 2.0 0.58 Michigan 1.23

Iowa 1.1 1.0 1.12 Oregon 1.22

Kansas 1.0 1.0 0.93 Minnesota 1.19

Louisiana 1.1 1.0 1.08 Utah 1.16

Michigan 1.3 1.0 1.23 North Carolina 1.13

Minnesota 3.7 3.1 1.19 Iowa 1.12

Mississippi 1.0 1.0 1.02 Wisconsin 1.11

Montana 2.1 1.0 2.10 Louisiana 1.08

Nevada 1.2 2.0 0.58 Wyoming 1.06

New Mexico 38.5 37.1 1.04 Oklahoma 1.04

North Carolina 2.3 2.0 1.13 New Mexico 1.04

North Dakota 10.9 11.0 0.99 South Dakota 1.04

Oklahoma 2.1 2.0 1.04 Mississippi 1.02

Oregon 1.2 1.0 1.22 North Dakota 0.99

South Dakota 19.0 18.4 1.04 Kansas 0.93

Utah 1.2 1.0 1.16 Arizona 0.92

Washington 3.6 4.0 0.90 Washington 0.90

Wisconsin 2.2 2.0 1.11 Nevada 0.58

Wyoming 1.1 1.0 1.06 Florida 0.58

Abbreviations:

LMC = Library Media Center

SASS = Schools and Staffing Survey

Source:

1993-94 Library Media Center Survey data file (U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics)

1993-94 Schools and Staffing Survey data file (U. S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics)
24

Table 2-7. No Library Media Center Estimates for Bureau of Indian Affairs Schools:

The Library Media Center Survey Compared to the Schools and Staffing Survey 

by State, 1993-94

By Alphabetical State Order By Descending LMC/SASS Ratio

LMC Survey SASS Survey LMC/SASS LMC/SASS

(C1) (C2) (C1/C2) (C1/C2)

United States 10.0 11.1 0.90 United States 0.90

Idaho 1.0 1.0 0.98 Minnesota 1.10

Minnesota 1.1 1.0 1.10 Idaho 0.98

New Mexico 2.7 3.0 0.90 Washington 0.98

South Dakota 3.2 4.0 0.80 Wisconsin 0.93

Washington 1.0 1.0 0.98 New Mexico 0.90

Wisconsin 1.0 1.0 0.93 South Dakota 0.80

Abbreviations:

LMC = Library Media Center

SASS = Schools and Staffing Survey

Source:

1993-94 Library Media Center Survey data file (U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics)

1993-94 Schools and Staffing Survey data file (U. S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics)
25

Section 2.1 LMC and CCD State Nonfiscal Survey

(Public): Library Definitions part of an instructional materials center.

Definitions and Items

LMC

The LMC survey library media center definition, which

appears at the beginning of the survey form was:

“For this survey, a library media center is defined

as an organized collection of printed and/or

audiovisual and/or computer resources which [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; it could be called a library, media

center, resource center, information center,

instructional materials center, learning resource

center, or some other name.”

The LMC survey then asked: 

“Does this school have a library media center?”

CCD 

The library definition was implied from these

definitions:

“Librarians and Media Specialists - C04

Librarians are those professional staff members and

supervisors who are assigned specific duties and school

time to professional library service activities, including:

selecting, acquiring, preparing, cataloging, and

circulating books and other printed materials;

planning the use of the library by students, teachers

and other members of the instructional staff; and

guiding individuals in their use of library books

and material, whether maintained separately or as

a part of an instructional materials center.”

“Library and Media Support Staff - C05

Library support staff are those staff members who

render other professional library services, including

selecting, preparing, caring for, and making available to

members of the instructional staff the equipment, films,

filmstrips, transparencies, tapes, TV programs and

similar materials, whether maintained separately or as

C INCLUDE activities in the audio visual center, TV

studio, and related work-study areas, and services

provided by audiovisual personnel.

C INCLUDE library aides and those involved in

Library/Media support”

Discussion

The LMC survey collected counts of libraries. The

CCD state nonfiscal survey did not. Thus, no

comparison could be made for counts of libraries.

Nonetheless, it was useful to compare the definitions of

a library because this affects related responses. 

The LMC survey referred to a collection of printed,

audiovisual and computer resources. The CCD state

nonfiscal survey’s definition of librarians and media

specialists referred to “books and other printed

materials.” Audiovisual resources were referenced

under the library and media support staff definition.

Computer resources were not mentioned. 

The descriptions of the locations of resources were the

same for the two surveys with the exception of a

reference to classroom collections. The LMC survey,

in the introductory general instructions, excluded

“Classroom collections (materials located in teachers’

classrooms and not administered by the library media

center).” The CCD state nonfiscal survey indicated

library resources could be maintained separately. This

could be understood to include classroom collections.

It was unlikely, however, that non-library staff whose

duties include ordering classroom books would be

misconstrued to be classified as librarians or library

media specialists.

Related Report Sections

See Sections 3.3A, 3.3B, 4.0A, 4.0B, 4.1A and 4.1B.
26

Section 2.2 LMS and CCD State Nonfiscal Survey Discussion

(Public): Library Definitions

Definitions and Items LMS survey or the CCD surveys. No comparison was

LMS

The LMS survey used the same definition of libraries as

the LMC survey. See Section 2.1.

CCD

See Section 2.1.

Counts of libraries were not collected on either the

performed. As discussed in Section 2.1, there were

notable differences in references to the types of

resources. These differences affected the definitions of

library staff.

Related Report Sections

See Sections 3.6A and 3.6B.
27

CHAPTER 3. LIBRARY MEDIA SPECIALISTS Discussion

AND LIBRARY AIDES

Library Media Center Surveys Compared to the specialists. The LMS survey requested the form be

Library Media Specialist Surveys

Section 3.0A LMC and LMS Surveys (Public,

Private and BIA): Librarian State Certification and

Professional Definitions

Definitions and Items

LMC

LMC Item 1a = “How many state-certified library

media specialists work in this

school’s library media center?”

LMC Item 1b = “How many professional staff

members working in this school’s

library media center are NOT

certified as library media

specialists?”

LMS

LMS Item 2 = “How do you classify your MAIN

assignment at THIS school (i.e.,

the activity at which you spend

MOST of your time) this school

year?”

LMS Item 12 = “Do you have a bachelor’s

degree?”

LMS Item 13a = “Do you have a master’s degree?”

LMS Item 14a = “Do you have any other type of

degree?”

LMS Item 14b = list of : Associate degree;

Education specialist or

professional diploma; or

Doctorate or first professional

diploma.

LMS Item 17a = “Are you certified as a library

media specialist by this state?”

The LMC survey collected counts of library media

16

completed by the “school employee who is reponsible

for this school’s library media center, that is, the library

media specialist or librarian.” Effectively, there was no

difference between the surveys for the definitions of a

library media specialist. The presentation, however,

differed notably.

For library staff, the LMC survey collected separate

counts of state-certified library media specialists ,

17

other professionals and nonprofessionals. It implied that

library media specialists may or may not be state

certified in Item 1a. The library media specialist was

assumed to be a professional as indicated by Item 1b. 

All counts must be for paid staff.

The LMS survey did not indicate any criteria for

specialists/librarians in Item 2, a request for the

respondent’s main assignment. In subsequent Items 12,

13a, 14a and 14b, it separated the professionals by

asking if the respondent has a degree. Item 17a asked

if the respondent was state certified as a library media

specialist. Respondents may be paid staff or

18

volunteers.19

The terms library media specialist and librarian 16

are considered interchangeable according to the National

Center for Education Statistics report “School Library Media

Centers in the United States 1990–91.” For this report, the

two terms were considered interchangeable. In the LMS

survey, the terms were presented as library media

specialist/librarian throughout the report, except for one

question that asked if the respondent was state certified as a

specialist. The LMC survey used only the term library media

specialist and not the term librarian.

Specialists certified in a state other than the one 17

in which they work were reported as other professionals.

There would be a small number of these. For this report, all

specialists were assumed to be certified in the state in which

they work.

The item asked if the respondent was certified in 18

the state where the respondent worked. For this report,

specialists were assumed to be certified by the state in which

they work.

Parent volunteers were instructed not to continue

19

with the survey after completing the request for the

respondent’s main assignment.
28

The LMC survey implied that a professional may have

an associate, bachelor’s, master’s or doctoral degree.

The possession of any of these degrees was considered

professional for these comparisons. Note, however,

that the American Association of School Librarians and

the Association of Educational Communications and

Technology consider the master’s degree in library and

information science and related fields to be the entrylevel degree for a professional school librarian.

Looking at the findings in Section 3.0B, the high

agreement between survey responses for state

certification suggests most respondents realized that

“library media specialist” and “librarian” were

interchangeable terms. The contradictory responses

could be because school non-library staff completed the

LMC survey and did not know their librarian also was

a library media specialist.

The findings in Section 3.0C showed similar rates of

agreement and disagreement for responses concerning

professional training. Because the inquiries were

presented in different formats, differences in response

were due more to the way respondents go about

completing the form than a definitional or layout

problem. Some disagreement may have been due to the

LMC survey respondents not bothering to check library

staff personnel files for degrees. Instead, they indicated

what they thought was correct. Some disagreement,

however, may have occurred because the LMC survey

did not define the term “professional,” leaving the

respondent to make assumptions.

When comparing data for these two surveys, it is

important to recognize the different subjects surveyed.

The LMS and LMC surveys were both sent to the same

sample of schools. The LMC survey collected data for

the school’s entire library media staff. The LMS survey

covered only the library media specialist/librarian at a

school.

Related Report Sections

See Sections 3.0B and 3.0C. 

Section 3.0B LMC and LMS Surveys (Public,

Private and BIA): Librarian State Certification

Counts 

Comparison

The LMC survey was compared to the LMS survey for

the number of state-certified library media specialists

by type of school. 

Hypothesis

The count of state-certified library media specialists for

the LMS survey should be equaled or exceeded by the

count for the LMC survey. This is because the LMS

survey covers only the respondent.

A Reverse Look

Hypothesis

If a school reports one or more state-certified library

media specialists on the LMC survey, then there should

be a completed LMS survey with a response of “yes”

for state certification.

Principal Finding: The reporting between the

surveys for state certification of library media

specialists was fairly consistent. 

Tables

Tables 3-1 and 3-2 show the comparison results for

schools that were in-scope on both surveys. 

Items

See Section 3.0A for LMC Item 1a and LMS Item 17a.

Results in a Nutshell

The results were inconclusive, that is, no definite

conclusions could be made about the data. The levels

of agreement and disagreement were not high enough to

declare clear results. Input from data users would be

needed to establish criteria for results.

Basic Findings

Public School Findings

Table 3-1 contains all of the basic findings. 

The following table describes the LMS schools in Table

3-1.
29

The LMS Survey Public Schools

Scope Presence of a State-Certified

Librarian

yes no no Total

response20

in-scope 1,627 318 0 1,945

nonrespondent 0 0 272 272

Total 1,627 318 272 2,217

The following points can be deduced from Table 3-1.

Note that each total relates to the total line above.

C For the 1,627 LMS state-certified librarians, 1,550

(95.3 percent) of their schools reported one or

more state-certified librarians on the LMC survey,

18 (1.1 percent) reported no state-certified

librarians, and 59 (3.6 percent) had no response.

C For the 318 LMS respondents that were not state

certified, 221(69.5 percent) of their schools

reported no state-certified librarians on the LMC

survey, 75 (23.6 percent) reported at least one, and

22 (6.9 percent) had no response.

C For the 272 LMS forms with no response, 128 (

47.1 percent) of these schools reported one or

more state-certified librarians on the LMC survey,

19 (7.0 percent) reported no state-certified

librarians, and 125 (46.0 percent) had no response.

Out-of-scope schools are not listed on Table 3-1. There

were 371 public schools that were out-of-scope on both

surveys. There also were 480 public schools that were

out-of-scope on the LMS survey but in-scope on the

LMC survey. Of these, 262 reported zeros for the

number of state-certified specialists on the LMC survey,

123 had no response, and 95 schools reported one or

more state-certified specialists.

A Reverse Look

There were 1,753 public schools that reported at least

one state-certified library media specialist on the LMC

survey. For these, 1,550 (88.4 percent) respondents

were state-certified library media specialists per the

LMS survey, 75 (4.3 percent) reported that they were

not state-certified specialists, and 128 (7.3 percent) had

no response. Of the 75 that were not state certified

according to the LMS survey, all were librarians or

specialists, although not state certified.

Private School Findings

Table 3-2 contains all of the basic findings. 

The following table describes the LMS schools in Table

3-2.

The LMS Survey Private Schools

Scope Presence of a State-Certified

Librarian

yes no no Total

response20

in-scope 366 587 0 953

nonrespondent 0 0 218 218

Total 366 587 218 1,171

The following points can be deduced from Table 3-2.

Note that each total relates to the total line above.

C Of the 366 LMS state-certified librarians, 342

(93.4 percent) of their schools reported one or

more stat-certified librarians on the LMC survey,

nine (2.5 percent) reported no state-certified

librarians, and 15 (4.1 percent) had no response.

C Of 587 the LMS respondents that were not statecertified, 437 (74.4 percent) of their schools

reported no state-certified librarians on the LMC

survey, 104 (17.8 percent) reported at least one,

and 46 (7.8 percent) had no response.

C Of 218 the LMS forms with no response, 23 (10.6

percent) of these schools reported one or more

state-certified librarians on the LMC survey, 71

(32.6 percent) reported no state-certified librarians,

and 124 (56.9 percent) had no response.

Out-of-scope schools are not listed on Table 3-2. There

were 465 private schools that were out-of-scope on both

surveys. There also were 712 private schools that were

out-of-scope on the LMS survey but in-scope on the

LMC survey. Of these, 416 had zeros for the number

These data were blanked for nonrespondents of state-certified specialists, 264 had no response, and 20

(nonrespondents and partial respondents).
30

32 schools reported one or more state-certified C Of the 13 LMS forms with no response, five (38.5

specialists. percent) of these schools reported one or more

A Reverse Look (30.8 percent) reported no state-certified librarians,

There were 469 private schools that reported at least

one state-certified library media specialist on the LMC Out-of-scope schools are not listed on Table 3-3. There

survey. For these, 342 (72.9 percent) respondents were were 18 BIA schools that were out-of-scope on both

state-certified library media specialists according to surveys. There also were 31 public schools that were

their LMS survey responses, 104 (22.2 percent) were out-of-scope on the LMS survey but in-scope on the

not state-certified specialists, and 23 (4.9 percent) had LMC survey. Of these, 17 had zeros for the number of

no response. Of the 104 that were not state certified state-certified specialists, eight had no response, and six

according to the LMS survey, all reported that they schools reported one or more state-certified specialists.

were librarians or specialists.

BIA School Findings

Table 3-3 contains all of the basic findings. least one state-certified library media specialist on the

The following table describes the LMS schools in Table LMC survey. For these, 57 (82.6 percent) reported

3-3. state certification on the LMS survey, seven (10.1

The LMS Survey BIA Schools

Scope Presence of a State-Certified

Librarian

yes no no Total

response21

in-scope 61 21 0 82

nonrespondent 0 0 13 13

Total 61 21 13 95

The following points can be deduced from Table 3-3.

Note that each total relates to the total line above.

C Of the 61 LMS state-certified librarians, 57 (93.4

percent) of their schools reported one or more

state-certified librarians on the LMC survey, one

(1.6 percent) reported no state-certified librarians,

and three (4.9 percent) had no response.

C Of the 21 LMS respondents that were not statecertified, 14 (66.7 percent) of their schools

reported no state-certified librarians on the LMC

survey, and seven (33.4 percent) reported at least

one.

state-certified librarians on the LMC survey, four

and four (30.8 percent) had no response.

A Reverse Look

There were 69 BIA school respondents that have at

percent) were not state certified, and five (7.2 percent)

had no response. Of the seven that were not state

certified according to the LMS survey, all were

librarians or specialists. 

Intersurvey Agreement and Disagreement

Intersurvey Agreement

The percentage of survey responses that agreed22

(considering nonrespondent status on the LMS and

LMC surveys to be equivalent to a response of “no”)

was 87.4 percent for the public schools, 87.1 percent

for the private schools, and 83.2 percent for the BIA

schools. Discounting the nonrespondents, 79.9 percent

of the public schools, 66.5 percent of the private

schools, and 74.7 percent of the BIA schools had

matching responses.

For the 1,627 public schools with state-certified library

media specialists completing the LMS survey, 95.3

percent knew when completing the LMC survey that

their librarian was a state-certified library media

specialist. For both private and BIA schools, the ratio

was 93.4 percent each.

Intersurvey Disagreement 

These data were blanked for nonrespondents

21

(nonrespondents and partial respondents).

Assuming that if anyone in the library was state 22

certified, then the librarian also would be. 
31

The percentage of survey responses that clearly Responses concerning state certification were imputed

contradicted each other (“yes” versus “no”) was 4.2 from the LMS survey to in-scope records on the LMC

percent for the public schools, 9.6 percent for the survey if the SASS survey met certain criteria. The

private schools, and 8.4 percent for the BIA schools. criteria for the SASS survey were that the count for

For the 318 public, 587 private and 21 BIA in-scope be greater than or equal to zero, and there must be

schools without a state-certified library media specialist exactly one part-time or full-time librarian reported

completing the LMS form, 75 (23.6 percent of the 318) (prior imputation theoretically replaces nonresponses

of the public, 104 (17.7 percent of the 587) of the for these SASS survey items with data or zeros). 

private, and seven (33.3 percent of the 21) of the BIA

LMC survey respondents thought the librarian was a If the SASS criteria were met, imputation from the

state-certified library media specialist when they are LMS survey replaced nonresponses on the LMC survey

not. For 75 of these 318 public, 104 of these 587 total count for state-certified specialists/librarians. For

private, and seven of these 21 BIA school cases, the a “yes” LMS response, imputation replaced a

person completing the LMS survey verified status as a nonresponse for the LMC survey with a one (1). For a

library media specialist or a librarian, but not state “no” LMS response, imputation replaced a nonresponse

certification. for the LMC survey with zero (0). This left any

Other Findings

Nonrespondents

The number of cases where the LMC survey indicated

at least one state-certified library media specialist, but

the LMS survey was a nonrespondent, was notable: 5.8

percent for the 2,217 public schools, 2.0 percent for the

1,171 private schools, and 5.3 percent for the 95 BIA

schools. The number of cases where the LMS survey

respondent indicated state certification, but the LMC

survey was a nonrespondent, was 2.7 percent for the

public schools, 1.3 percent for the private schools, and

3.2 percent for the BIA schools.

Classification of Scope

According to the processing specifications, if the LMC

survey school was out-of-scope, the related LMS survey

record also was classified as out-of-scope. There

should not be and were no cases where the LMC survey

school was out-of-scope and the LMS survey school

was in-scope. 

There were, however, schools that were in-scope and

reported state-certified specialists on the LMC survey

but were out-of-scope on the LMS survey. This

situation was not dealt with in the edits. A legitimate

cause for this situation was a certified specialist

considers another duty to be the main assignment.

Imputation

23

both part-time and full-time specialists/librarians must

24

reported data intact. 

There were cases where imputation did not occur

because the schools’ SASS survey responses did not

meet the criteria for imputation:

There were 59 nonrespondent cases where the public

school LMS survey respondent reported possession of

state certification, but the LMC survey count was zero.

There is no procedure for handling this situation (only

in-scopes are imputed) . 

25

There were 18 in-scope cases where the public school

LMS survey respondent reported possession of state

certification, but the LMC survey count was zero. 

For four of the 18, the SASS survey reported more

than one librarian. According to the specification,

imputation occurred only if the SASS survey

reports exactly one librarian, full or part time.

Thus, while the SASS survey had more than one

librarian and the LMS survey had a librarian

reporting state certification, the LMC survey had

zero for the number of state-certified specialists. 

Item 1a Part 4 in the Library Survey

23

Memorandum 94–7

That is, there must be either one full-time and no 24

part-time specialists/librarians, or no full-time and one parttime specialist/librarian.

The weights for nonrespondents were

25

redistributed to the in-scopes. The data were blanked.
32

For nine of the 18 in-scope schools, either the

SASS survey part-time specialist/librarian count

was a one and the full-time count was a zero, or the

other way around. This met the specification

criteria for the SASS survey for imputation. The

LMS survey state certification “yes” response,

however, was imputed to the LMC survey statecertified specialist count only if the LMC survey

had a nonresponse. Imputation did not occur if the

count of state-certified specialists was zero as was Hypothesis

the case for these nine schools. 

For five of the 18 in-scope cases, both the SASS

survey part-time and full-time specialist/librarian

counts were zero. This situation did not meet the

criteria for imputation. The assumption appears to

be that if the SASS survey did not report a

librarian, then there was no librarian. A librarian

did, however, report on the LMS survey.

It seems reasonable that the “yes” response on the LMS

survey should be imputed to the LMC survey. The LMS

survey was completed by individuals reporting about

their selves. The LMC survey could be completed by

a librarian or another school staff member. If the LMS

survey respondent reported state certification, this was

probably more reliable than the LMC survey response.

Section 3.0C LMC and LMS Surveys (Public,

Private and BIA): Librarian Professional Counts

Comparison

The in-scope LMC survey cases were compared to the

in-scope LMS survey cases for the number of

professionals by each type of school.

Hypothesis

The count of professionals working in the library for 26

the LMS survey should be equaled or exceeded by the

count for the LMC survey. This was because the LMS

survey covers only the respondent. 

A Reverse Look

If there was one or more professionals reported on the

LMC survey for a school, then there should be a

completed LMS survey with an affirmative response for

degrees. 

Principal Finding: The reporting for professionals

was fairly consistent between the surveys.

Tables

Tables 3-4 through 3-6 show the data comparison

results. 

Items

See Section 3.0A for LMS Items 12, 13a, 14a and 14b,

and LMC Items 1a and 1b. 

Results in a Nutshell

The results were inconclusive. The levels of agreement

and disagreement were not high enough to declare clear

results. Input from data users would be needed to

establish criteria for results.

The LMC survey implied that a professional may 26

have an associate, bachelor’s, master’s or doctoral degree.

The possession of any of these degrees will be considered

professional for these comparisons. Note, however, that the

American Association of School Librarians and the

Association of Educational Communications and Technology

consider the master’s degree in library and information

science and related fields to be the entry-level degree for a

professional school librarian.
33

Basic Findings

Public School Findings

Table 3-4 contains all of the basic findings. 

The following table describes the LMS schools in Table

3-4.

The LMS Survey Public Schools

Scope Presence of a Professional Librarian

yes no no Total

response27

in-scope 1,803 142 0 1,945

nonrespondent 0 0 272 272

Total 1,803 142 272 2,217

The following points can be deduced from Table 3-4.

Note that each total relates to the total line above.

C Of the 1,803 respondents with a degree, 1,714

(95.1 percent) of their schools reported one or

more persons in the library with a degree on the

LMC survey, 19 (1.1 percent) reported no degrees,

and 70 (3.9 percent) had no response.

C Of the 142 LMS respondents reporting no degree,

34 (23.9 percent) of their schools reported no

degrees for the library on the LMC survey, 97

(68.3 percent) reported at least one, and 11 (7.7

percent) had no response.

C Of the 272 LMS forms with no response, 135 (49.6

percent) of these schools reported one or more

degrees for the library on the LMC survey, 12 (4.4

percent) reported no degrees, and 125 (46.0

percent) had no response.

Out-of-scope schools are not listed on Table 3-4.

There were 371 public schools that were out-of-scope

on both surveys. There also were 480 public schools

that were out-of-scope on the LMS survey but in-scope

on the LMC survey. Of these, 149 had zeros for the

number of professionals, 123 had no response, and 208

schools reported one or more professionals.

A Reverse Look

For the 1,946 (87.8 percent) public schools that

reported at least one degree on the LMC survey, 1,714

(88.1 percent of the 1,946) LMS respondents reported

a degree, 97 (5.0 percent) reported no professional

training, and 135 (6.9 percent) had no response. 

Private School Findings

Table 3-5 contains all of the basic findings. 

The following table describes the LMS schools in Table

3-5.

The LMS Survey Private Schools

Scope Presence of a Professional Librarian

yes no no Total

response27

in-scope 813 140 0 953

nonrespondent 0 0 218 218

Total 813 140 218 1,171

The following points can be deduced from Table 3-5.

Note that each total relates to the total line above.

C Of the 813 respondents with a degree, 752 (69.4

percent) of their schools reported one or more

persons in the library with a degree on the LMC

survey, 19 (2.3 percent) reported no degrees, and

42 (5.2 percent) had no response.

C Of the 140 LMS respondents reporting no degree,

21 (15.0 percent) of their schools reported no

degrees for the library on the LMC survey, 100

(71.4 percent) reported at least one, and 19 (13.6

percent) had no response.

C Of the 218 LMS forms with no response, 67 (30.7

percent) of these schools reported one or more

degrees for the library on the LMC survey, 27

(12.4 percent) reported no degrees, and 124 (56.9

percent) had no response.

Out-of-scope schools are not listed on Table 3-5.

There were 465 private schools that were out-of-scope

on both surveys. There also were 712 private schools

that were out-of-scope on the LMS survey but in-scope

on the LMC survey. Of these, 232 had zeros for the

number of professionals, 264 were nonrespondents,

and 216 schools reported one or more professionals.

These data were blanked for nonrespondents. 27
34

A Reverse Look survey. Of these, 10 had zeros for the number of

For the 919 (78.5 percent) private schools that reported schools reported one or more professionals.

at least one professional on the LMC survey, 752 (81.8

percent of the 919) LMS respondents reported a degree, A Reverse Look

100 (10.9 percent) reported no degree, and 67 (7.3

percent) had no response. For the 83 (87.4 percent) BIA schools reporting at least

BIA School Findings 83) LMS respondents reported a degree, three (3.6

Table 3-6 contains all of the basic findings. had no response.

The following table describes the LMS schools in Table

3-6.

The LMS Survey BIA Schools

Scope Presence of a Professional Librarian

yes no no Total

response28

in-scope 77 5 0 82

nonrespondent 0 0 13 13

Total 77 5 13 95

The following points can be deduced from Table 3-6.

Note that each total relates to the total line above.

C Of the 77 respondents with a degree, 73 (94.8

percent) of their schools reported one or more

persons in the library with a degree on the LMC

survey, one (1.3 percent) reported no degrees, and

three (3.9 percent) had no response.

C Of the five LMS respondents reporting no degree,

two (40.0 percent) of their schools reported no

degrees for the library on the LMC survey, and

three (60.0 percent) reported at least one.

C Of the 13 LMS forms with no response, seven

(53.8 percent) of these schools reported one or

more degrees for the library on the LMC survey,

two (15.4 percent) reported no degrees, and four

(30.8 percent) had no response.

Out-of-scope schools are not listed on Table 3-6. There

were 18 BIA schools that were out-of-scope on both

surveys. There also were 31 BIA schools that were outof-scope on the LMS survey but in-scope on the LMC

professionals, eight were nonrespondents, and 13

one degree on the LMC survey, 73 (88.0 percent of the

percent) reported no degree, and seven (8.4 percent)

Intersurvey Agreement and Disagreement

Intersurvey Agreement

Considering a nonrespondent status on the LMS and

LMC surveys to be equivalent to a response of “no,”

the percentage of survey responses that agreed was 85.5

percent for the public schools, 80.5 percent for the

private schools, and 85.3 percent for the BIA schools.

Discounting the nonrespondents, however, 78.8 percent

of the public schools, 66.0 percent of the private

schools, and 78.9 percent of the BIA schools had

matching responses.

For public schools with professionals heading the

library according to the LMS survey, 95.1 percent of

the LMC survey respondents reported the librarian was

a professional. For private and BIA schools, the ratio

was 92.5 and 94.8 percent, respectively.

Intersurvey Disagreement 

The percentage of survey responses that clearly

contradicted each other (“yes” versus “no”) was 5.3

percent for the public schools, 10.2 percent for the

private schools, and 4.2 percent for the BIA schools.

There were 142 public, 140 private and five BIA inscope schools without a professional (“no” for degrees)

completing the LMS form. Of these, 97 (68.3 percent of

the 142) of the public, 100 (71.4 percent of the 140) of

the private, and three (60.0 percent of the five) of the

BIA LMC survey respondents thought the librarian was

a professional when this was not the case.

For the 19 public schools, 19 private schools and one

BIA school where the LMS survey respondent had a

degree while the LMC survey reported no

professionals, an additional comparison was performed.

The data were examined to see if the LMS survey

These data were blanked for nonrespondents. 28
35

respondent in these cases was an aide with a degree. certified as a library media specialist by this state?,” to

There were no such cases. the LMC survey counts of librarians and other

For the 97 public, 100 private and three BIA schools

where the LMS respondent did not have a degree but

the LMC survey reported at least one professional, an

additional data comparison was done. The data were

reviewed for the possibility that an aide without a

degree and heading the library was reported on the

LMC survey as a professional. There were 35 public,

four private and three BIA cases where the LMS survey

respondent was an aide without a degree. If the LMS

survey was completed by the respondent, then these

schools reported staff members without degrees as

professionals on the LMC survey.

Other Findings

Nonrespondents

The number of cases where the LMC survey indicated

at least one professional, but the LMS survey was a

nonrespondent, was notable: 6.1 percent for the 2,217

public schools, 5.7 percent for the 1,171 private

schools, and 7.4 percent for the 95 BIA schools. The

percentage of cases where the LMS survey respondent

had a degree but the LMC survey was a nonrespondent

was 3.2 for the public schools, 3.6 for the private

schools, and 3.2 for the BIA schools.

Imputation

An imputation procedure attempted to replace

29

nonresponses for the LMC survey counts of librarians

and other professionals. It first tried to impute a “yes”

or “no” response from the LMS survey item, “Are you

professionals. A “yes” response was imputed as a count

of one for librarians. A “no” response was imputed as

a count of one for other professionals. 

If the LMS survey item was blank, the imputation

procedure looked within the LMC survey. The count of

the LMC survey reported degrees was imputed for the

LMC survey counts of other professionals. 

Then, the imputation returned to the LMS survey to try

to replace nonresponses for the LMC survey item

asking about degrees. The LMS survey reported

degrees were used to impute for nonresponse to the

LMC survey item for degrees.

It was possible for the LMS survey respondent to report

a degree, but the LMC survey to report no

professionals. This situation occurred because the

imputation logic sequence was:

1. LMC degrees to LMC other professionals.

2. LMS degrees to LMC degrees.

when it should be:

1. LMS degrees to LMC degrees.

2. LMC degrees to LMC other professionals.

The current imputation procedure allowed that a report

of no degrees for the LMC survey resulted in a

nonresponse replaced by a zero for other professionals.

A degree from the LMS survey then imputed to the

LMC survey did not affect the count of professionals.

By imputing the degrees from the LMS survey to the

LMC survey first, any LMS survey degree then

accounted for on the LMC survey would impute to the

Library Survey Memorandum 94–7 LMC survey “other professionals” count. 29
36

Table 3-1. State-Certified Library Media Specialists Counts for Public Schools:

The Library Media Center Survey Compared to the Library Media Specialist Survey 

for In-Scope Linked Schools, 1993-94

LMC Survey: Response to LMS Survey: “Are you Count of LMS Survey Percent of Total Responses

Number of State-Certified certified as a library media Respondents

Specialists specialist by this state?”

At least one Yes 1,550 69.9

None Yes 18 0.8

Nonrespondent Yes 59 2.7

At least one Nonrespondent 128 5.8

None Nonrespondent 19 0.9

Nonrespondent Nonrespondent 125 5.6

At least one No 75 3.4

None No 221 10.0

Nonrespondent No 22 1.0

Total Schools 2,217 100.0

Abbreviations:

LMC = Library Media Center Survey

LMS = Library Media Specialist/Librarian Survey

Notes:

In-scope = The school reported a library (LMC survey) or librarian (LMS survey) and sufficiently completed the

survey. Responses and counts are from in-scope schools.

Nonrespondent = Either a nonresponse or insufficient response: the school has a library (LMC survey) or librarian (LMS

survey) but the remainder of the survey responses are insufficient for inclusion in the tabulated data. 

Linked = Linked schools are those matching by identification number between surveys. The schools are on both

surveys’ mailing lists, that is, sample. 

Source: 1993–94 Library Media Center Survey data file (U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education

Statistics)

1993–94 Library Media Specialist/Librarian Survey data file (U.S. Department of Education, National Center

for Education Statistics)
37

Table 3-2. State-Certified Library Media Specialists Counts for Private Schools:

The Library Media Center Survey Compared to the Library Media Specialist Survey 

for In-Scope Linked Schools, 1993-94

LMC Survey: Response to LMS Survey: “Are you Count of LMS Survey Percent of Total Responses

Number of State-Certified certified as a library media Respondents

Specialists specialist by this state?”

At least one Yes 342 29.2

None Yes 9 0.8

Nonrespondent Yes 15 1.3

At least one Nonrespondent 23 2.0

None Nonrespondent 71 6.1

Nonrespondent Nonrespondent 124 10.6

At least one No 104 8.9

None No 437 37.3

Nonrespondent No 46 3.9

Total Schools 1,171 100.0

Abbreviations:

LMC = Library Media Center Survey

LMS = Library Media Specialist/Librarian Survey

Notes:

In-scope = The school reported a library (LMC survey) or librarian (LMS survey) and sufficiently completed

the survey. Responses and counts are from in-scope schools.

Nonrespondent = Either a nonresponse or insufficient response: the school has a library (LMC survey) or librarian

(LMS survey) but the remainder of the survey responses are insufficient for inclusion in the

tabulated data. 

Linked = Linked schools are those matching by identification number between surveys. The schools are

on both surveys’ mailing lists, that is, sample. 

Source: 1993–94 Library Media Center Survey data file (U.S. Department of Education, National Center for

Education Statistics)

1993–94 Library Media Specialist/Librarian Survey data file (U.S. Department of Education, National

Center for Education Statistics)
38

Table 3-3. State-Certified Library Media Specialists Counts for Bureau of Indian Affairs Schools:

The Library Media Center Survey Compared to the Library Media Specialist Survey 

for In-Scope Linked Schools, 1993-94

LMC Survey: Response to LMS Survey: “Are you Count of LMS Survey Percent of Total Responses

Number of State-Certified certified as a library media Respondents

Specialists specialist by this state?”

At least one Yes 57 60.0

None Yes 1 1.1

Nonrespondent Yes 3 3.2

At least one Nonrespondent 5 5.3

None Nonrespondent 4 4.2

Nonrespondent Nonrespondent 4 4.2

At least one No 7 7.4

None No 14 14.7

Nonrespondent No 0 0.0

Total Schools 95 100.0

Abbreviations:

LMC = Library Media Center Survey

LMS = Library Media Specialist/Librarian Survey

Notes:

In-scope = The school reported a library (LMC survey) or librarian (LMS survey) and sufficiently completed

the survey. Responses and counts are from in-scope schools.

Nonrespondent = Either a nonresponse or insufficient response: the school has a library (LMC survey) or librarian

(LMS survey) but the remainder of the survey responses are insufficient for inclusion in the

tabulated data. 

Linked = Linked schools are those matching by identification number between surveys. The schools are

on both surveys’ mailing lists, that is, sample. 

Source: 1993–94 Library Media Center Survey data file (U.S. Department of Education, National Center for

Education Statistics)

1993–94 Library Media Specialist/Librarian Survey data file (U.S. Department of Education, National

Center for Education Statistics)
39

Table 3-4. Professional Staff Counts for Public Schools:

The Library Media Center Survey Compared to the Library Media Specialist Survey 

for In-Scope Linked Schools, 1993-94

LMC Survey: Response to LMS Survey: Respondent Count of LMS Survey Percent of Total Responses

Number of Professionals has a degree Respondents

At least one Yes 1,714 77.3

None Yes 19 0.9

Nonrespondent Yes 70 3.2

At least one Nonrespondent 135 6.1

None Nonrespondent 12 0.5

Nonrespondent Nonrespondent 125 5.6

At least one No 97 4.4

None No 34 1.5

Nonrespondent No 11 0.5

Total Schools 2,217 100.0

Abbreviations:

LMC = Library Media Center Survey

LMS = Library Media Specialist/Librarian Survey

Notes:

In-scope = The school reported a library (LMC survey) or librarian (LMS survey) and sufficiently completed

the survey. The school reported a library (LMC survey) or librarian (LMS survey) and sufficiently

completed the survey. Responses and counts are from in-scope schools.

Nonrespondent = Either a nonresponse or insufficient response: the school has a library (LMC survey) or librarian

(LMS survey) but the remainder of the survey responses are insufficient for inclusion in the

tabulated data. 

Linked = Linked schools are those matching by identification number between surveys. The schools are

on both surveys’ mailing lists, that is, sample. 

Source: 1993–94 Library Media Center Survey data file (U.S. Department of Education, National Center for

Education Statistics)

1993–94 Library Media Specialist/Librarian Survey data file (U.S. Department of Education, National

Center for Education Statistics)
40

Table 3-5. Professional Staff Counts for Private Schools:

The Library Media Center Survey Compared to the Library Media Specialist Survey 

for In-Scope Linked Schools, 1993-94

LMC Survey: Response to LMS Survey: Respondent Count of LMS Survey Percent of Total Responses

Number of Professionals has a degree Respondents

At least one Yes 752 64.2

None Yes 19 1.6

Nonrespondent Yes 42 3.6

At least one Nonrespondent 67 5.7

None Nonrespondent 27 2.3

Nonrespondent Nonrespondent 124 10.6 

At least one No 100 8.5

None No 21 1.8

Nonrespondent No 19 1.6

Total Schools 1,171 100.0

Abbreviations:

LMC = Library Media Center Survey

LMS = Library Media Specialist/Librarian Survey

Notes:

In-scope = The school reported a library (LMC survey) or librarian (LMS survey) and sufficiently completed

the survey. The school reported a library (LMC survey) or librarian (LMS survey) and sufficiently

completed the survey. Responses and counts are from in-scope schools.

Nonrespondent = Either a nonresponse or insufficient response: the school has a library (LMC survey) or librarian

(LMS survey) but the remainder of the survey responses are insufficient for inclusion in the

tabulated data. 

Linked = Linked schools are those matching by identification number between surveys. The schools are

on both surveys’ mailing lists, that is, sample. 

Source: 1993–94 Library Media Center Survey data file (U.S. Department of Education, National Center for

Education Statistics)

1993–94 Library Media Specialist/Librarian Survey data file (U.S. Department of Education, National

Center for Education Statistics)
41

Table 3-6. Professional Staff Counts for Bureau of Indian Affairs Schools:

The Library Media Center Survey Compared to the Library Media Specialist Survey 

for In-Scope Linked Schools, 1993-94

LMC Survey: Response to LMS Survey: Respondent Count of LMS Survey Percent of Total Responses

Number of Professionals has a degree Respondents

At least one Yes 73 76.8 

None Yes 1 1.1

Nonrespondent Yes 3 3.2

At least one Nonrespondent 7 7.4

None Nonrespondent 2 2.1

Nonrespondent Nonrespondent 4 4.2 

At least one No 3 3.2

None No 2 2.1

Nonrespondent No 0 0.0

Total Schools 95 100.0

Abbreviations:

LMC = Library Media Center Survey

LMS = Library Media Specialist/Librarian Survey

Notes:

In-scope = The school reported a library (LMC survey) or librarian (LMS survey) and sufficiently completed

the survey. The school reported a library (LMC survey) or librarian (LMS survey) and sufficiently

completed the survey. Responses and counts are from in-scope schools.

Nonrespondent = Either a nonresponse or insufficient response: the school has a library (LMC survey) or librarian

(LMS survey) but the remainder of the survey responses are insufficient for inclusion in the

tabulated data. 

Linked = Linked schools are those matching by identification number between surveys. The schools are

on both surveys’ mailing lists, that is, sample. 

Source: 1993–94 Library Media Center Survey data file (U.S. Department of Education, National Center for

Education Statistics)

1993–94 Library Media Specialist/Librarian Survey data file (U.S. Department of Education, National

Center for Education Statistics)
42

Library Media Center Surveys Compared to Other

Surveys function at this school; for example, a teaching

Section 3.1A LMC and SASS Surveys (Public,

Private and BIA): Librarian and Aide Full-Time

and Part-Time Definitions 

Definitions and Items

LMC

LMC Item 1a = “How many state-certified library

media specialists work in this

school’s library media center?”

Separate counts are collected for

part-time and full-time staff.”

LMC Item 1b = “How many professional staff

members working in this school’s

library media center are NOT

certified as library media

specialists?” Separate counts are

collected for part-time and full-time

staff.”

LMC Item 1c = “How many other PAID employees

work in this school’s library media

center? Include paid clerical staff,

library aides, etc.”

SASS

SASS Item 16e = “Part-time positions - Library media

specialists/librarians”

SASS Item 17e = “Full-time positions - Library media

specialists/librarians”

SASS Item 16h = “Part-time positions - Library media

center aides”

SASS Item 17h = “Full-time positions - Library media

center aides”

“INCLUDE AS PART-TIME:

C Employees who work part-time.

C Employees you share with other schools. For

the public school survey only: ‘...within or

outside of the school district.’

C Employees who perform more than one

principal would be counted once as a part-time

teacher and again as a part-time principal.”

Discussion

Differences in counts were expected to due to the

handling of volunteers and certain part-time employees.

The SASS survey did not mention volunteers or specify

that staff positions must be paid. The SASS survey

included specific instructions for handling certain parttime employment situations the LMC survey did not

address.

The LMC survey dids not have reporting instructions

for the situations described by the second and third

points of the SASS part-time instructions. It was not

clear if hours were based on position or actual work

assignment. For example, it was not clear if a full-time

library media specialist who worked part time

elsewhere in the school or at another school would be

reported as full time or part time. For the public school

LMC survey, it was not explained if an employee based

at another school but working part time in the library at

the surveyed school should be reported.

The findings showed that more part-time librarians and

aides were reported on the LMC survey than the SASS

survey. The SASS survey presented specific

instructions for handling part-time librarians and aides.

It explained how to report employees assigned to more

than one school or function. The LMC survey did not.

 Perhaps the LMC survey respondents were overreporting the part-time staff due to a lack of

instructions.

Fewer full-time aides were reported on the LMC survey

than the SASS survey for all types of schools. There

were specific instructions on the SASS survey on how

to report employees who were assigned to more than

one school or function. The LMC survey did not have

instructions for these situations; these aides may be

omitted from the LMC survey counts.

The low number of part-time aides for private schools

on the LMC survey compared to the SASS survey was

partly due to the handling of volunteers. The SASS

survey did not mention volunteers or specify that staff

positions must be paid. The LMC survey specifically

stated that employees must be paid and to exclude

volunteers. Private schools often have volunteers

working in the libraries. Table 3-20, discussed in
43

Section 3.4B, show that 5.7 percent of the part-time

librarians reported on the SASS survey were volunteers

for schools linked to the LMS survey.

Note the LMC survey/SASS survey estimates for

specialists/librarians were in high agreement, while the

LMC survey/CCD survey comparisons in Section 3.3B

differed. The SASS terminology, with no definition,

provides more consistent results with the LMC survey

than the CCD state nonfiscal survey definition.

Related Report Sections

See Sections 3.1B and 3.1C. schools. For example, the full-time library media

Section 3.1B LMC and SASS Survey (Public,

Private and BIA): Librarian and Aide Full-Time for private schools, and 111 percent for public schools.

and Part-Time Counts

Comparison

The LMC survey was compared to the SASS survey for

total counts of library personnel by school. 

Hypothesis

The lack of instructions for reporting counts of staff

assigned to more than one function or school will cause

the LMC survey counts to be higher than the SASS

survey counts.

Principal Findings: The surveys differed on counts

of total staff.

Tables

Tables 3-7 through 3-8 show data comparisons for inscope schools in both the LMC survey and the SASS

survey samples (in-scope linked schools). 

Items 

See Section 3.1A.

Results in a Nutshell

The LMC survey counts of librarians and other

professionals were higher than the SASS survey counts

as hypothesized. The comparison for the library aides

generated mixed results. Note the same results were

found for the same comparison of weighted data in

Section 3.1C.

Intersurvey Agreement and Disagreement

Intersurvey Agreement

The ratios of the LMC survey counts to the SASS

survey counts looked reasonable. The LMC survey

counts for the full-time and part-time

specialists/librarians were higher than the SASS survey

counts as expected. The LMC survey counts for the

part-time library aides were the same as or higher than

the SASS survey counts.

The ratios were mostly consistent across types of

specialist/librarian ratios ranged from 102 percent to

111 percent: 102 percent for BIA schools, 105 percent

Intersurvey Disagreement

The only surprise in the ratios involved library aides.

The full-time library aides counts for all types of

schools and the part-time library aides for private

schools were notably lower on the LMC survey than

those for the SASS survey. This was the opposite of

expectations.

Other Findings

Imputation

The imputation for the SASS survey public school

30

full-time librarians was examined. (The imputation for

the part-time librarians and the full-time and part-time

aides was similar.) The imputation replaced a

nonresponse. The imputation for full-time librarians

had five steps:

1. If the school’s local education agency reported

no full-time librarians on the TDS survey, then

a nonresponse was changed to zero.

2. If step 1 did not apply and if the school’s LMS

survey indicated there was no librarian, then a

zero was imputed. 

3. If neither step 1 or step 2 applied, the reported

number of full-time librarians from the LMC

survey was imputed. 

SASS Specifications Memorandum 94–32 30
44

4 and 5. Steps 4 and 5 used information from The LMC survey estimates for librarians and other

other items on the SASS survey for imputation professionals were higher than the SASS survey

if none of steps 1, 2 or 3 applied. estimates as hypothesized. The comparison for library

The TDS local education agency data had precedence the same for the counts in Section 3.1B.

over the LMS and LMC survey data for imputation.

The data were examined for cases where the local

education agency reported no librarians, but the LMC

survey or the SASS survey reported one or more.

There were 491 such cases. This casts doubt on the

validity of this order of precedence. This may help

explain why the LMC survey public school counts were

higher than the SASS survey counts. 

It also was curious that a report of one librarian on the

LMS survey was not allowed to impute for Step 2. In

Step 3, a report of more than one librarian on the LMC

survey could impute over the one, while a “no”

response or zero on the LMC survey would not be

allowed to impute over.

Section 3.1C LMC and SASS Surveys (Public and

BIA): Librarian and Aide Full-Time and Part-Time

Estimates agreement between the LMC survey and the SASS

Comparison: 

Estimates for full-time and part-time

specialists/librarians and aides by state and by type of

school for the LMC survey and the SASS survey

samples were compared.

 

Hypothesis

The lack of instructions for reporting counts of staff

assigned to more than one function or school will cause

the LMC estimates to be higher than the SASS survey

estimates. 

Principal Findings: The surveys differed on counts

of total staff.

Tables

Tables 3-9 through 3-16 show the results.

Items

See Section 3.1A.

Results in a Nutshell

aides generated mixed results. The overall results were

Basic Findings

Results for library aide data were mixed. Part-time aide

estimates were higher on the LMC survey as expected.

The number of full-time aides on the LMC survey

compared to the SASS survey was low for both types of

schools. 

Public School Findings

For public schools, the LMC survey estimates for

librarians/specialists and part-time aides were higher

than the SASS survey estimates at the national level, as

expected. The ratio for full-time aides, however, was

low. 

The data for full-time specialists/librarians showed high

survey. Most states reported slightly higher on the

SASS survey as expected. The ratios ranged from 0.92

to 1.59 with a national average of 1.11.

The data for part-time specialists/librarians showed a

wider range of ratios, but most states reported as

expected. The ratios ranged from 0.67 to 3.77 with a

national average of 1.29. 

The data for full-time library aides showed the opposite

of expectations. The ratios ranged from 0.37 to 2.33

with a national average of 0.83. 

The data for part-time library aides showed expected

results. The ratios ranged from 0.43 to 4.04 with a

national average of 1.14.

BIA School Findings

For the BIA schools, the ratio of librarians/specialists

in the LMC survey to the SASS survey was 1.14 for full

time and 1.67 for part time, in line with expectations.

The ratio of full-time aides was low, 0.83, and the ratio

for part-time aides is 1.49, as expected. These ratios

followed the same pattern as the ratios for the public

schools.

Other Findings
45

Public School Estimation survey and six on the SASS survey reported a part-time

Georgia’s ratio of 3.77 on Table 3-10 was high relative estimates were 231.3 and 61.3. 

to the other states. Seven Georgia schools on the LMC

library media specialist/librarian. Weighted, these

Few Georgia schools reported consistently. Five of the

schools that reported one on the LMC survey reported

zero on the SASS survey. Two of the schools reporting

one on the SASS survey reported none on the LMC

survey.

Thus, the high ratio for Georgia was due to high

variance and inconsistent reporting by individual

schools between surveys. With so few responses, each

response had a great impact.
46

Table 3-7. Part-Time and Full-Time Library Media Specialist/Librarian Counts by Type of School: 

The Library Media Center Survey Compared to the Schools and Staffing Survey 

for In-Scope Linked Schools, 1993-94

Type of School LMC Survey Count SASS Survey Count Ratio: LMC/SASS

 (C1) (C1/C2) (C2)

Part time

Public 1,309 1,050 1.25

Private 938 741 1.27

BIA 47 31 1.52

Full time

Public 3,887 3,497 1.11

Private 1,066 1,013 1.05

BIA 95 93 1.02

Abbreviations:

LMC = Library Media Center Survey

SASS = Schools and Staffing Survey

Notes:

For this table, library media specialists/librarians are defined as:

For the LMC survey = library media specialists/librarians and other professionals working

in the library.

For the SASS survey = library media specialists/librarians.

In-scope = For the LMS survey, the school reported a library and sufficiently completed the form. For

the SASS survey, the school is in operation and is an elementary or secondary school. 

Nonrespondent = For the LMS survey, the school either is a nonrespondent, or has a library but the remainder

of the survey responses are insufficient for inclusion in the tabulated data. For the SASS

survey, the school meets the in-scope criteria but is either a nonrespondent or the remainder

of the survey responses are insufficient for inclusion in the tabulated data.

Linked = Linked schools are those matching by identification number between surveys. The schools

are on both surveys’ mailing lists, that is, sample. 

Source: 1993–94 Library Media Center Survey data file (U.S. Department of Education, National

Center for Education Statistics)

1993–94 Schools and Staffing Survey data file (U.S. Department of Education, National

Center for Education Statistics)
47

Table 3-8. Part-Time and Full-Time Library Media Center Aides Counts by Type of School:

The Library Media Center Survey Compared to the Schools and Staffing Survey 

for In-Scope Linked Schools, 1993-94

Type of School LMC Survey Count SASS Survey Count Ratio: LMC/SASS

 (C1) (C2) (C1/C2)

Part time

Public 1,479 1,118 1.32

Private 579 594 .98

BIA 30 22 1.36

Full time

Public 1,797 2,113 .85

Private 235 267 .88

BIA 39 53 .74

Abbreviations:

BIA = Bureau of Indian Affairs

LMC = Library Media Center Survey

SASS = Schools and Staffing Survey

Notes:

For this table, library media center aides are defined as:

For the LMC survey = library aides and clerks working in the library.

For the SASS survey = library aides.

In-scope = For the LMS survey, the school reported a library and sufficiently completed the form. For

the SASS survey, the school is in operation and is an elementary or secondary school. 

Nonrespondent = For the LMS survey, the school either is a nonrespondent, or has a library but the remainder

of the survey responses are insufficient for inclusion in the tabulated data. For the SASS

survey, the school meets the in-scope criteria but is either a nonrespondent or the remainder

of the survey responses are insufficient for inclusion in the tabulated data.

Linked = Linked schools are those matching by identification number between surveys. The schools

are on both surveys’ mailing lists, that is, sample. 

Source: 1993–94 Library Media Center Survey data file (U.S. Department of Education, National

Center for Education Statistics)

1993–94 Schools and Staffing Survey data file (U.S. Department of Education, National

Center for Education Statistics
48

Table 3-9. Full-Time Library Media Specialist/Librarian Estimates for Public Schools:

The Library Media Center Survey Compared to the Schools and Staffing Survey 

by State, 1993-94

By Alphabetical State Order By Descending LMC/SASS Ratio

LMC Survey SASS Survey LMC/SASS LMC/SASS

(C1) (C2) (C1/C2) (C1/C2)

United States 57,606.4 52,032.1 1.11 United States 1.11

Alabama 1,315.5 1,199.7 1.10 South Dakota 1.59

Alaska 203.2 187.1 1.09 Kansas 1.46

Arizona 1,058.6 834.5 1.27 Idaho 1.42

Arkansas 969.0 951.1 1.02 Oklahoma 1.39

California 2,777.5 2,494.9 1.11 Maine 1.38

Colorado 915.8 928.5 0.99 North Dakota 1.38

Connecticut 552.9 599.2 0.92 Montana 1.35

Delaware 141.3 140.6 1.00 Missouri 1.34

District of Columbia 166.2 157.4 1.06 Oregon 1.34

Florida 2,640.5 2,512.4 1.05 Arizona 1.27

Georgia 2,129.1 1,917.0 1.11 New Hampshire 1.25

Hawaii 251.5 259.3 0.97 Wyoming 1.25

Idaho 340.3 238.9 1.42 Illinois 1.25

Illinois 2,600.1 2,081.2 1.25 Indiana 1.23

Indiana 1,465.3 1,195.8 1.23 Iowa 1.22

Iowa 727.2 596.3 1.22 Nebraska 1.21

Kansas 985.1 674.1 1.46 New Mexico 1.20

Kentucky 1,247.5 1,097.8 1.14 Massachusetts 1.16

Louisiana 1,206.3 1,146.0 1.05 Pennsylvania 1.15

Maine 334.8 242.4 1.38 Mississippi 1.14

Maryland 1,092.2 1,026.8 1.06 Kentucky 1.14

Massachusetts 924.0 799.3 1.16 California 1.11

Michigan 1,879.4 1,724.3 1.09 Georgia 1.11

Minnesota 815.6 831.3 0.98 Wisconsin 1.10

Mississippi 894.7 782.8 1.14 North Carolina 1.10

Missouri 1,495.2 1,113.3 1.34 Alabama 1.10

Montana 367.5 273.1 1.35 Michigan 1.09

Nebraska 546.6 453.1 1.21 South Carolina 1.09

Nevada 337.6 311.2 1.08 Alaska 1.09

New Hampshire 263.7 210.3 1.25 Nevada 1.08

New Jersey 1,490.0 1,549.2 0.96 Tennessee 1.08

New Mexico 460.3 383.1 1.20 Texas 1.07

New York 2,881.1 2,978.2 0.97 Utah 1.06

North Carolina 2,145.3 1,951.3 1.10 Maryland 1.06

North Dakota 149.8 108.9 1.38 District of Columbia 1.06

Ohio 2,174.0 2,093.1 1.04 Louisiana 1.05

Oklahoma 1,246.9 897.7 1.39 Florida 1.05

Oregon 700.9 523.6 1.34 Ohio 1.04

Pennsylvania 2,273.7 1,981.3 1.15 Virginia 1.04

Rhode Island 147.0 144.3 1.02 Arkansas 1.02

South Carolina 1,185.4 1,091.1 1.09 Rhode Island 1.02

South Dakota 295.7 186.4 1.59 Vermont 1.01

Tennessee 1,421.0 1,312.0 1.08 Washington 1.01

Texas 4,738.9 4,442.2 1.07 Delaware 1.00

Utah 391.6 367.8 1.06 Colorado 0.99

Vermont 185.7 183.4 1.01 Minnesota 0.98

Virginia 1,754.4 1,691.1 1.04 Hawaii 0.97

Washington 1,290.9 1,280.8 1.01 New York 0.97

West Virginia 376.8 404.4 0.93 New Jersey 0.96

Wisconsin 1,463.7 1,331.2 1.10 West Virginia 0.93

Wyoming 189.4 151.5 1.25 Connecticut 0.92

Abbreviations: LMC = Library Media Center SASS = Schools and Staffing Survey

Notes:

For this table, library media specialists/ librarians are defined as: For the LMC survey = library media specialists/ librarians and other

professionals working in the library. For the SASS survey = library media specialists/ librarians.

Source:

1993-94 Library Media Center Survey data file (U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics)

1993-94 Schools and Staffing Survey data file (U. S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics)
49

Table 3-10. Part-Time Library Media Specialist/Librarian Estimates for Public Schools:

The Library Media Center Survey Compared to the Schools and Staffing Survey 

by State, 1993-94

By Alphabetical State Order By Descending LMC/SASS Ratio

LMC Survey SASS Survey LMC/SASS LMC/SASS

(C1) (C2) (C1/C2) (C1/C2)

United States 29,897.6 23,093.3 1.29 United States 1.29

Alabama 51.8 77.6 0.67 Georgia 3.77

Alaska 229.6 127.9 1.80 Hawaii 2.38

Arizona 150.4 165.8 0.91 Nevada 2.32

Arkansas 287.0 182.8 1.57 Michigan 2.29

California 4,152.2 2,318.3 1.79 Virginia 2.13

Colorado 536.5 311.0 1.73 Mississippi 1.88

Connecticut 219.2 219.1 1.00 South Carolina 1.83

Delaware 26.3 36.8 0.71 Alaska 1.80

District of Columbia 2.7 2.5 1.09 California 1.79

Florida 56.2 52.6 1.07 North Carolina 1.74

Georgia 231.3 61.3 3.77 Colorado 1.73

Hawaii 6.2 2.6 2.38 Arkansas 1.57

Idaho 265.8 219.6 1.21 Vermont 1.57

Illinois 1,780.4 1,223.2 1.46 Oregon 1.46

Indiana 518.9 603.9 0.86 Illinois 1.46

Iowa 1,161.4 887.1 1.31 Minnesota 1.42

Kansas 887.9 809.5 1.10 Utah 1.41

Kentucky 379.2 361.9 1.05 Wyoming 1.39

Louisiana 298.0 258.4 1.15 Montana 1.38

Maine 259.1 213.5 1.21 New York 1.35

Maryland 249.8 284.0 0.88 New Jersey 1.34

Massachusetts 557.2 570.2 0.98 Iowa 1.31

Michigan 1,468.9 641.1 2.29 Ohio 1.30

Minnesota 950.9 671.1 1.42 Nebraska 1.25

Mississippi 127.8 67.9 1.88 South Dakota 1.23

Missouri 1,140.8 1,074.1 1.06 Maine 1.21

Montana 746.9 542.7 1.38 North Dakota 1.21

Nebraska 659.2 527.9 1.25 Idaho 1.21

Nevada 100.1 43.1 2.32 Louisiana 1.15

New Hampshire 151.7 154.2 0.98 Washington 1.12

New Jersey 958.7 717.4 1.34 West Virginia 1.10

New Mexico 106.0 138.4 0.77 Rhode Island 1.10

New York 1,376.1 1,016.2 1.35 Kansas 1.10

North Carolina 453.1 260.6 1.74 District of Columbia 1.09

North Dakota 435.9 359.8 1.21 Florida 1.07

Ohio 1,673.7 1,285.4 1.30 Missouri 1.06

Oklahoma 818.3 772.7 1.06 Oklahoma 1.06

Oregon 589.4 402.5 1.46 Kentucky 1.05

Pennsylvania 1,181.2 1,275.9 0.93 Texas 1.02

Rhode Island 175.2 158.6 1.10 Connecticut 1.00

South Carolina 104.7 57.4 1.83 Wisconsin 0.99

South Dakota 497.3 403.6 1.23 New Hampshire 0.98

Tennessee 205.3 283.5 0.72 Massachusetts 0.98

Texas 1,192.0 1,166.6 1.02 Pennsylvania 0.93

Utah 251.6 178.2 1.41 Arizona 0.91

Vermont 194.8 124.5 1.57 Maryland 0.88

Virginia 219.2 103.1 2.13 Indiana 0.86

Washington 555.1 496.1 1.12 New Mexico 0.77

West Virginia 241.4 218.5 1.10 Tennessee 0.72

Wisconsin 803.2 810.6 0.99 Delaware 0.71

Wyoming 212.0 152.3 1.39 Alabama 0.67

Abbreviations: LMC = Library Media Center SASS = Schools and Staffing Survey

Notes:

For this table, library media specialists/ librarians are defined as: For the LMC survey = library media specialists/ librarians and other

professionals working in the library. For the SASS survey = library media specialists/ librarians.

Source:

1993-94 Library Media Center Survey data file (U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics)

1993-94 Schools and Staffing Survey data file (U. S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics)
50

Table 3-11. Full-Time Library Aide Estimates for Public Schools:

The Library Media Center Survey Compared to the Schools and Staffing Survey 

by State, 1993-94

By Alphabetical State Order By Descending LMC/SASS Ratio

LMC Survey SASS Survey LMC/SASS LMC/SASS

(C1) (C2) (C1/C2) (C1/C2)

United States 26,554.8 31,997.9 0.83 United States 0.83

Alabama 330.5 531.8 0.62 Rhode Island 2.33

Alaska 78.7 76.6 1.03 New Jersey 1.25

Arizona 319.5 540.0 0.59 Louisiana 1.17

Arkansas 121.8 217.2 0.56 Massachusetts 1.14

California 1,743.8 1,943.8 0.90 Virginia 1.12

Colorado 567.9 632.6 0.90 Illinois 1.11

Connecticut 476.2 455.4 1.05 Hawaii 1.08

Delaware 17.3 23.6 0.73 Michigan 1.06

District of Columbia 27.5 39.5 0.70 Connecticut 1.05

Florida 1,260.1 1,411.6 0.89 Minnesota 1.03

Georgia 886.4 1,283.9 0.69 Alaska 1.03

Hawaii 55.6 51.5 1.08 Colorado 0.90

Idaho 100.1 274.0 0.37 California 0.90

Illinois 1,636.5 1,471.3 1.11 New York 0.89

Indiana 887.8 1,101.2 0.81 Florida 0.89

Iowa 464.3 646.8 0.72 Washington 0.88

Kansas 419.9 544.5 0.77 Ohio 0.88

Kentucky 289.9 531.5 0.55 Mississippi 0.87

Louisiana 256.1 219.4 1.17 Tennessee 0.86

Maine 230.9 402.9 0.57 North Dakota 0.85

Maryland 341.9 467.1 0.73 Pennsylvania 0.83

Massachusetts 575.6 506.6 1.14 Indiana 0.81

Michigan 1,166.2 1,100.4 1.06 Texas 0.79

Minnesota 725.8 705.1 1.03 Utah 0.78

Mississippi 403.9 463.0 0.87 Kansas 0.77

Missouri 319.6 555.1 0.58 New Hampshire 0.76

Montana 91.8 167.9 0.55 Oklahoma 0.76

Nebraska 304.8 414.9 0.73 Vermont 0.75

Nevada 70.2 155.9 0.45 Nebraska 0.73

New Hampshire 136.8 180.6 0.76 Oregon 0.73

New Jersey 904.5 722.4 1.25 Maryland 0.73

New Mexico 217.3 326.4 0.67 Delaware 0.73

New York 1,496.0 1,674.9 0.89 Iowa 0.72

North Carolina 538.2 839.1 0.64 District of Columbia 0.70

North Dakota 98.7 115.9 0.85 Wyoming 0.69

Ohio 1,186.6 1,354.4 0.88 Georgia 0.69

Oklahoma 605.2 799.8 0.76 Wisconsin 0.67

Oregon 431.4 587.8 0.73 New Mexico 0.67

Pennsylvania 844.5 1,021.2 0.83 North Carolina 0.64

Rhode Island 59.0 25.3 2.33 South Dakota 0.62

South Carolina 506.4 816.5 0.62 Alabama 0.62

South Dakota 101.0 161.7 0.62 South Carolina 0.62

Tennessee 268.1 311.8 0.86 Arizona 0.59

Texas 2,636.0 3,319.2 0.79 Missouri 0.58

Utah 129.2 166.2 0.78 Maine 0.57

Vermont 90.9 121.5 0.75 Arkansas 0.56

Virginia 792.6 710.1 1.12 Montana 0.55

Washington 556.2 630.4 0.88 Kentucky 0.55

West Virginia 19.2 40.8 0.47 West Virginia 0.47

Wisconsin 652.3 971.3 0.67 Nevada 0.45

Wyoming 114.6 165.4 0.69 Idaho 0.37

Abbreviations: LMC = Library Media Center SASS = Schools and Staffing Survey

Notes:

For this table, library media center aides are defined as: 

For the LMC survey = library aides and clerks working in the library. For the SASS survey = library aides.

Source:

1993-94 Library Media Center Survey data file (U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics)

1993-94 Schools and Staffing Survey data file (U. S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics)
51

Table 3-12. Part-Time Library Aide Estimates for Public Schools:

The Library Media Center Survey Compared to the Schools and Staffing Survey 

by State, 1993-94

By Alphabetical State Order By Descending LMC/SASS Ratio

LMC Survey SASS Survey LMC/SASS LMC/SASS

(C1) (C2) (C1/C2) (C1/C2)

United States 26,557.6 23,271.2 1.14 United States 1.14

Alabama 204.9 194.6 1.05 District of Columbia 4.04

Alaska 179.0 143.0 1.25 Louisiana 2.29

Arizona 503.0 361.1 1.39 Tennessee 2.03

Arkansas 167.6 212.0 0.79 Texas 1.83

California 2,270.1 3,022.1 0.75 Delaware 1.77

Colorado 406.9 556.5 0.73 Virginia 1.72

Connecticut 314.1 215.5 1.46 Florida 1.67

Delaware 42.8 24.2 1.77 Nevada 1.61

District of Columbia 22.6 5.6 4.04 Vermont 1.53

Florida 626.8 374.8 1.67 Nebraska 1.50

Georgia 283.6 409.1 0.69 Maryland 1.47

Hawaii 30.9 22.8 1.36 Connecticut 1.46

Idaho 232.9 233.4 1.00 Illinois 1.45

Illinois 1,748.8 1,205.0 1.45 New York 1.43

Indiana 576.1 497.2 1.16 Arizona 1.39

Iowa 848.0 728.6 1.16 Hawaii 1.36

Kansas 639.6 473.9 1.35 Washington 1.36

Kentucky 429.3 354.7 1.21 Kansas 1.35

Louisiana 171.3 74.8 2.29 Wisconsin 1.33

Maine 198.9 211.7 0.94 North Carolina 1.30

Maryland 386.8 262.7 1.47 Alaska 1.25

Massachusetts 466.0 440.6 1.06 South Carolina 1.25

Michigan 1,290.2 1,121.8 1.15 North Dakota 1.24

Minnesota 953.7 802.5 1.19 Kentucky 1.21

Mississippi 97.7 99.2 0.98 Minnesota 1.19

Missouri 444.4 508.3 0.87 Pennsylvania 1.17

Montana 336.6 316.4 1.06 Iowa 1.16

Nebraska 630.2 421.0 1.50 Indiana 1.16

Nevada 155.1 96.4 1.61 Michigan 1.15

New Hampshire 181.5 161.6 1.12 West Virginia 1.14

New Jersey 804.1 734.8 1.09 Wyoming 1.14

New Mexico 43.7 101.5 0.43 New Hampshire 1.12

New York 1,542.5 1,078.1 1.43 New Jersey 1.09

North Carolina 743.8 570.4 1.30 Montana 1.06

North Dakota 208.7 168.2 1.24 Massachusetts 1.06

Ohio 999.2 1,174.2 0.85 Alabama 1.05

Oklahoma 382.2 531.0 0.72 Idaho 1.00

Oregon 486.8 534.2 0.91 Mississippi 0.98

Pennsylvania 1,110.4 952.2 1.17 Maine 0.94

Rhode Island 99.5 120.2 0.83 Oregon 0.91

South Carolina 292.1 233.5 1.25 Utah 0.90

South Dakota 203.3 234.9 0.87 Missouri 0.87

Tennessee 284.4 140.2 2.03 South Dakota 0.87

Texas 1,421.2 778.7 1.83 Ohio 0.85

Utah 278.8 308.3 0.90 Rhode Island 0.83

Vermont 114.2 74.6 1.53 Arkansas 0.79

Virginia 364.7 212.4 1.72 California 0.75

Washington 1,001.9 739.3 1.36 Colorado 0.73

West Virginia 59.2 51.8 1.14 Oklahoma 0.72

Wisconsin 1,094.7 821.0 1.33 Georgia 0.69

Wyoming 182.8 160.6 1.14 New Mexico 0.43

Abbreviations: LMC = Library Media Center SASS = Schools and Staffing Survey

Notes:

For this table, library media center aides are defined as: 

For the LMC survey = library aides and clerks working in the library. For the SASS survey = library aides.

Source:

1993-94 Library Media Center Survey data file (U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics)

1993-94 Schools and Staffing Survey data file (U. S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics)
52

Table 3-13. Full-Time Library Media Specialist/Librarian Estimates for Bureau of Indian Affair

Schools: The Library Media Center Survey Compared to the Schools and Staffing Survey 

by State, 1993-94

By Alphabetical State Order By Descending LMC/SASS Ratio

LMC Survey SASS Survey LMC/SASS LMC/SASS

(C1) (C2) (C1/C2) (C1/C2)

United States 106.9 94.2 1.14 United States 1.14

Arizona 33.6 30.2 1.11 Washington 1.90

California 1.4 1.0 1.36 North Dakota 1.64

Connecticut 0.0 0.0 0.00 California 1.36

Florida 0.0 0.0 0.00 New Mexico 1.26

Idaho 0.0 0.0 0.00 Michigan 1.23

Iowa 0.0 0.0 0.00 Oregon 1.22

Kansas 1.0 1.0 0.93 Minnesota 1.19

Louisiana 0.0 0.0 0.00 North Carolina 1.13

Michigan 1.3 1.0 1.23 Wisconsin 1.11

Minnesota 3.7 3.1 1.19 Arizona 1.11

Mississippi 1.0 0.0 0.00 Oklahoma 1.04

Montana 0.0 0.0 0.00 Kansas 0.93

Nevada 0.0 0.0 0.00 South Dakota 0.72

New Mexico 27.9 22.2 1.26 Idaho 0.00

North Carolina 2.3 2.0 1.13 Connecticut 0.00

North Dakota 13.1 8.0 1.64 Montana 0.00

Oklahoma 2.1 2.0 1.04 Louisiana 0.00

Oregon 1.2 1.0 1.22 Mississippi 0.00

South Dakota 13.4 18.5 0.72 Utah 0.00

Utah 0.0 1.0 0.00 Wyoming 0.00

Washington 3.8 2.0 1.90 Nevada 0.00

Wisconsin 1.1 1.0 1.11 Florida 0.00

Wyoming 0.0 0.0 0.00 Iowa 0.00

Abbreviations:

LMC = Library Media Center

SASS = Schools and Staffing Survey

Notes:

For this table, library media specialists/ librarians are defined as:

For the LMC survey = library media specialists/ librarians and other professionals working in the library.

For the SASS survey = library media specialists/ librarians.

Source:

1993-94 Library Media Center Survey data file (U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics)

1993-94 Schools and Staffing Survey data file (U. S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics)
53

Table 3-14. Part-Time Library Media Specialist/Librarian Estimates for Bureau of Indian Affair

Schools: The Library Media Center Survey Compared to the Schools and Staffing Survey

 by State, 1993-94

By Alphabetical State Order By Descending LMC/SASS Ratio

LMC Survey SASS Survey LMC/SASS LMC/SASS

(C1) (C2) (C1/C2) (C1/C2)

United States 51.9 31.1 1.67 United States 1.67

Arizona 17.9 9.0 1.98 New Mexico 2.34

California 0.0 0.0 0.00 Montana 2.10

Connecticut 0.0 0.0 0.00 Arizona 1.98

Florida 1.2 1.0 1.18 South Dakota 1.54

Idaho 0.0 0.0 0.00 Florida ??

Iowa 1.1 1.0 1.12 Washington 1.13

Kansas 0.0 0.0 0.00 Iowa 1.12

Louisiana 0.0 0.0 0.00 Wyoming 1.03

Michigan 0.0 0.0 0.00 Mississippi 1.02

Minnesota 0.0 0.0 0.00 North Dakota 0.28

Mississippi 1.0 1.0 1.02 California 0.00

Montana 2.1 1.0 2.10 Idaho 0.00

Nevada 0.0 1.0 0.00 Connecticut 0.00

New Mexico 14.1 6.0 2.34 Minnesota 0.00

North Carolina 2.3 0.0 0.00 Michigan 0.00

North Dakota 1.1 4.0 0.28 North Carolina 0.00

Oklahoma 0.0 0.0 0.00 Louisiana 0.00

Oregon 0.0 0.0 0.00 Wisconsin 0.00

South Dakota 7.8 5.1 1.54 Oklahoma 0.00

Utah 0.0 0.0 0.00 Nevada 0.00

Washington 1.1 1.0 1.13 Kansas 0.00

Wisconsin 1.1 0.0 0.00 Oregon 0.00

Wyoming 1.1 1.0 1.03 Utah 0.00

Abbreviations:

LMC = Library Media Center

SASS = Schools and Staffing Survey

Notes:

For this table, library media specialists/ librarians are defined as:

For the LMC survey = library media specialists/ librarians and other professionals working in the library.

For the SASS survey = library media specialists/ librarians.

Source:

1993-94 Library Media Center Survey data file (U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics)

1993-94 Schools and Staffing Survey data file (U. S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics)
54

Table 3-15. Full-Time Library Aide Estimates for Bureau of Indian Affair Schools:

The Library Media Center Survey Compared to the Schools and Staffing Survey

 by State, 1993-94

By Alphabetical State Order By Descending LMC/SASS Ratio

LMC Survey SASS Survey LMC/SASS LMC/SASS

(C1) (C2) (C1/C2) (C1/C2)

United States 44.1 53.4 0.83 United States 0.83

Arizona 12.1 18.1 0.67 California 1.36

California 1.4 1.0 1.36 Washington 1.34

Connecticut 0.0 0.0 0.00 Minnesota 1.15

Florida 0.0 0.0 0.00 New Mexico 1.04

Idaho 0.0 0.0 0.00 North Dakota 0.83

Iowa 0.0 0.0 0.00 Arizona 0.67

Kansas 0.0 0.0 0.00 South Dakota 0.64

Louisiana 0.0 0.0 0.00 Florida 0.00

Michigan 1.3 0.0 0.00 Montana 0.00

Minnesota 1.2 1.0 1.15 Iowa 0.00

Mississippi 0.0 0.0 0.00 Connecticut 0.00

Montana 0.0 0.0 0.00 Louisiana 0.00

Nevada 0.0 0.0 0.00 Michigan 0.00

New Mexico 14.5 14.0 1.04 North Carolina 0.00

North Carolina 0.0 2.0 0.00 Mississippi 0.00

North Dakota 3.3 4.0 0.83 Wyoming 0.00

Oklahoma 1.1 0.0 0.00 Oregon 0.00

Oregon 0.0 0.0 0.00 Nevada 0.00

South Dakota 6.5 10.2 0.64 Wisconsin 0.00

Utah 0.0 0.0 0.00 Idaho 0.00

Washington 2.7 2.0 1.34 Kansas 0.00

Wisconsin 0.0 1.0 0.00 Oklahoma 0.00

Wyoming 0.0 0.0 0.00 Utah 0.00

Abbreviations:

LMC = Library Media Center

SASS = Schools and Staffing Survey

Notes:

For this table, library media center aides are defined as:

For the LMC survey = library aides and clerks working in the library.

For the SASS survey = library aides.

Source:

1993-94 Library Media Center Survey data file (U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics)

1993-94 Schools and Staffing Survey data file (U. S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics)
55

Table 3-16. Part-Time Library Aide Estimates for Bureau of Indian Affair Schools:

The Library Media Center Survey Compared to the Schools and Staffing Survey 

by State, 1993-94

By Alphabetical State Order By Descending LMC/SASS Ratio

LMC Survey SASS Survey LMC/SASS LMC/SASS

(C1) (C2) (C1/C2) (C1/C2)

United States 32.9 22.0 1.49 United States 1.49

Arizona 10.8 9.0 1.20 New Mexico 2.99

California 0.0 0.0 0.00 South Dakota 1.65

Connecticut 0.0 0.0 0.00 Washington 1.34

Florida 0.0 0.0 0.00 Arizona 1.20

Idaho 0.0 0.0 0.00 North Dakota 0.00

Iowa 0.0 0.0 0.00 North Carolina 0.00

Kansas 0.0 0.0 0.00 Nevada 0.00

Louisiana 0.0 0.0 0.00 Oklahoma 0.00

Michigan 0.0 0.0 0.00 Utah 0.00

Minnesota 0.0 0.0 0.00 Wisconsin 0.00

Mississippi 0.0 0.0 0.00 Oregon 0.00

Montana 0.0 0.0 0.00 Wyoming 0.00

Nevada 1.2 0.0 0.00 Idaho 0.00

New Mexico 12.0 4.0 2.99 Iowa 0.00

North Carolina 0.0 0.0 0.00 Florida 0.00

North Dakota 3.2 4.0 0.00 California 0.00

Oklahoma 0.0 0.0 0.00 Connecticut 0.00

Oregon 0.0 0.0 0.00 Kansas 0.00

South Dakota 3.3 2.0 1.65 Mississippi 0.00

Utah 0.0 1.0 0.00 Montana 0.00

Washington 1.3 1.0 1.34 Minnesota 0.00

Wisconsin 1.1 0.0 0.00 Louisiana 0.00

Wyoming 0.0 1.0 0.00 Michigan 0.00

Abbreviations:

LMC = Library Media Center

SASS = Schools and Staffing Survey

Notes:

For this table, library media center aides are defined as:

For the LMC survey = library aides and clerks working in the library.

For the SASS survey = library aides.

Source:

1993-94 Library Media Center Survey data file (U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics)

1993-94 Schools and Staffing Survey data file (U. S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics)
56

Library Media Center Surveys Compared to Other specialists/librarians who provide district-level

Surveys - continued services.

Section 3.2A LMC and SASS TDS Survey (Public):

Librarian Definitions be counted on both schools’ LMC surveys, but reported

Definitions and Items

LMC

LMC Item 1a = “How many state-certified library

media specialists work in this

school’s library media center?”

LMC Item 1b = “How many professional staff

members working in this school’s

library media center are NOT

certified as library media

specialists?”

SASS

SASS Item 19 = “Around October 1 of this school

year, how many FTE library media

specialists/librarians were employed

by this district?”

Discussion survey does not. 

The TDS survey collected counts of library media

specialists/librarians employed by the local education

agency. Because the survey collected by assignment,

the counts may include other professionals working in

the library. The TDS survey state estimates can be

compared to the public school LMC survey state

estimates for the number of library media specialists

and other professionals working in the library. Neither

survey presented a definition. Differences may occur

because:

(1) the surveys had different units of collection: the

TDS survey collected data in full-time equivalents

while the LMC survey collected counts,

(2) the LMC survey counts specifically included other

professionals who work in the library media center,

while the TDS survey did not specifically state so,

and 

(3) the surveys had different levels of reporting: the

TDS survey respondent was at the state level while

the LMC survey respondent was at the school level.

The TDS survey may have included

Note that a librarian shared between two schools would

on a FTE basis for the TDS survey.

Related Report Sections 

See Section 3.2B. 

Section 3.2B LMC and SASS TDS Survey (Public):

Librarian Estimates

Comparison

The estimates of specialists/librarians on the TDS

survey were compared to the estimates of library media

specialists plus other professionals working in the

library on the public school LMC survey.

Hypothesis

Differences in the estimates are expected because the

surveys 1) have different units of collection, 2) have

different levels of reporting, and 3) the LMC survey

count includes other professionals while the TDS

Principal Findings: The estimates of librarians

differed between surveys.

Tables

Table 3-17 shows the results. 

Items

See Section 3.2A.

Results in a Nutshell

The LMC survey estimates equaled or exceeded the

TDS survey estimates. The difference in units of

collection may be the overriding factor. The data,

however, may indicate many professionals who are not

specialists/librarians are working in the library. The

estimation of the LMC survey also may be a factor.
57

Basic Findings

For the nation, the ratio of all professionals in the

library reported on the LMC survey to specialists and

librarians reported on the TDS survey was 1.69. In all

but one state, the ratio was greater than 1.0; the only

exception is 0.9 for Hawaii. 

Other Findings

Estimation

The District of Columbia was notable as an outlier with

a ratio of 42.23. The sole local education agency in the

District of Columbia reported four specialists/librarians

on the SASS survey while the individual schools

reported 60, with a weighted aggregate of 168.9. It is

likely there was a data error on the part of the local

education agency. Removing the District from the

national totals has no effect on the national LMC

survey/SASS survey ratio. 

The reporting for California was interesting. The SASS

TDS survey specialists/librarians count was 928 which

weights to 1,718. It was reasonable to assume this

should represent both specialists/librarians and other

professionals working in the library because analysis

showed the SASS survey public school count did. 

The CCD state nonfiscal survey collected counts of

specialists/librarians separately from the other

professionals. The CCD state nonfiscal survey reported

928 specialists/librarians and 3,022 other professionals.

This totaled to 3,950 specialists/librarians and other

professionals.

The public school SASS survey count for California

was 4,813.2 specialists/librarians and other

professionals. This was reasonably close to the CCD

state nonfiscal survey total of 3, 950. 

The conclusion was the SASS TDS survey count of

928 represented the specialists/librarians, but not the

other professionals. Additionally, the count of 928

looked incorrect (see Section 3.6B, “other findings”). 
58

Table 3-17. Library Media Specialist/Librarian Estimates for Public Schools:

The Library Media Center Survey Compared to the Schools and Staffing Teacher Demand Survey by

State, 1993-94

By Alphabetical State Order By Descending LMC/SASS Ratio

LMC Survey SASS Survey LMC/SASS LMC/SASS

(C1) (C2) (C1/C2) (C1/C2)

United States 87,503.6 51,642.8 1.69 United States 1.69

Alabama 1,367.3 1,259.7 1.09 District of Columbia 42.23

Alaska 432.8 184.1 2.35 California 4.03

Arizona 1,208.9 936.3 1.29 South Dakota 3.58

Arkansas 1,256.0 923.9 1.36 Wyoming 3.04

California 6,929.7 1,718.0 4.03 Idaho 2.78

Colorado 1,452.3 589.8 2.46 Oregon 2.68

Connecticut 772.2 689.3 1.12 Montana 2.58

Delaware 167.6 109.5 1.53 Michigan 2.56

District of Columbia 168.9 4.0 42.23 Colorado 2.46

Florida 2,696.7 2,469.6 1.09 North Dakota 2.39

Georgia 2,360.4 1,943.9 1.21 Iowa 2.37

Hawaii 257.7 287.0 0.90 Nebraska 2.36

Idaho 606.1 217.8 2.78 Alaska 2.35

Illinois 4,380.6 1,941.6 2.26 Ohio 2.27

Indiana 1,984.1 1,137.4 1.74 Illinois 2.26

Iowa 1,888.5 796.0 2.37 New Mexico 2.22

Kansas 1,873.0 951.0 1.97 Oklahoma 2.11

Kentucky 1,626.6 1,157.0 1.41 Missouri 2.07

Louisiana 1,504.3 1,128.5 1.33 Kansas 1.97

Maine 593.9 305.9 1.94 Maine 1.94

Maryland 1,342.0 1,009.0 1.33 Minnesota 1.93

Massachusetts 1,481.0 892.1 1.66 Utah 1.89

Michigan 3,348.3 1,306.4 2.56 Nevada 1.82

Minnesota 1,766.5 913.5 1.93 Indiana 1.74

Mississippi 1,022.4 644.5 1.59 New Hampshire 1.72

Missouri 2,636.0 1,273.4 2.07 Wisconsin 1.69

Montana 1,101.0 426.3 2.58 New York 1.68

Nebraska 1,205.7 511.5 2.36 Massachusetts 1.66

Nevada 437.6 240.0 1.82 Mississippi 1.59

New Hampshire 415.3 241.5 1.72 Delaware 1.53

New Jersey 2,448.8 1,917.6 1.28 Pennsylvania 1.45

New Mexico 566.3 255.0 2.22 West Virginia 1.44

New York 4,257.1 2,526.6 1.68 Vermont 1.43

North Carolina 2,598.4 1,986.6 1.31 Kentucky 1.41

North Dakota 599.1 251.1 2.39 Rhode Island 1.40

Ohio 3,847.6 1,695.0 2.27 Texas 1.37

Oklahoma 2,065.2 978.0 2.11 Washington 1.37

Oregon 1,290.3 481.6 2.68 Arkansas 1.36

Pennsylvania 3,454.9 2,377.9 1.45 Louisiana 1.33

Rhode Island 322.2 230.6 1.40 Maryland 1.33

South Carolina 1,290.1 1,106.4 1.17 North Carolina 1.31

South Dakota 793.0 221.2 3.58 Arizona 1.29

Tennessee 1,626.3 1,373.6 1.18 New Jersey 1.28

Texas 5,930.9 4,336.3 1.37 Georgia 1.21

Utah 643.2 339.9 1.89 Tennessee 1.18

Vermont 380.5 266.1 1.43 South Carolina 1.17

Virginia 1,973.5 1,837.6 1.07 Connecticut 1.12

Washington 1,846.1 1,351.7 1.37 Florida 1.09

West Virginia 618.2 428.0 1.44 Alabama 1.09

Wisconsin 2,266.8 1,341.3 1.69 Virginia 1.07

Wyoming 401.4 132.2 3.04 Hawaii 0.90

Abbreviations: LMC = Library Media Center SASS = Schools and Staffing Survey

TDS = Teacher Demand and Shortage Questionnaire for Public School Districts

Notes:

The LMC survey collects counts while the TDS survey collects specialists/ librarians in full-time equivalents. For this table, the LMC

survey library media specialists/ librarians include other professionals working in the library. Also, the TDS survey may include

specialists/ librarians at the school district level.

Source:

1993-94 Library Media Center Survey data file (U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics)
59

1993-94 Schools and Staffing Survey data file (U. S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics)

Library Media Center Surveys Compared to Other who were not state certified should be considered

Surveys - continued other professionals working in the library. The

Section 3.3A LMC and CCD State Nonfiscal Survey

(Public): Librarian Definitions survey counts to be lower than the CCD survey

Definitions and Items

LMC

LMC Item 1a = “How many state-certified library

media specialists work in this

school’s library media center?”

CCD

“Librarians and Media Specialists - 

Librarians are those professional staff members

and supervisors who are assigned specific duties

and school time to professional library service

activities, including: selecting, acquiring,

preparing, cataloging and circulating books and

other printed materials; planning the use of the

library by students, teachers and other members of

the instructional staff; and guiding individuals in

their use of library books and materials, whether

maintained separately or as a part of an

instructional materials center.”

Discussion

The public school LMC survey estimates of statecertified library media specialists can be compared to

the CCD state nonfiscal survey’s universe counts of

librarians and media specialists. The CCD state

nonfiscal survey presented a definition of librarians and

media specialists while the LMC survey did not.

Depending on how the respondent interprets the

surveys’ questions, instructions and definitions, the

estimates may differ for any of the following reasons:

1) The two surveys had different units of collection.

The CCD state nonfiscal survey collected in fulltime equivalents, while the LMC survey collected

counts. This factor should cause the LMC survey

counts to be higher than the CCD survey counts.

2) For the public school LMC survey, state

certification was required to be classified as a

library media specialist. Library media specialists

CCD state nonfiscal survey did not make this

distinction. This factor should cause the LMC

counts.

3) Respondents may have failed to note the state

certification qualification on the request for counts

of state-certified specialists. They may regard the

LMC survey as requesting 1) librarians and 2)

other professionals, instead of 1) state-certified

librarians and 2) other librarians and professionals.

This factor would cause the LMC survey statecertified specialist counts to be higher than the

CCD state nonfiscal survey library media specialist

counts.

4) For the CCD state nonfiscal survey, any

professional fulfilling the duties of a librarian or

library media specialist (state-certified or not)

could be counted as a library media specialist. The

introductory text for the staff counts section

reinforces this with the statement “Staff counts are

to be reported according to actual work

assignments. In other words, if training or

certification is different from assigned positions,

report the counts according to assigned positions.”

This factor should cause the LMC survey counts to

be lower than the CCD survey counts.

5) The surveys had different levels of reporting. The

CCD state nonfiscal survey data were collected at

the state level, while the LMC survey data were

collected at the school level. The CCD state

nonfiscal survey’s counts may include staff

providing district and regional level library

services. District and regional level services were

specifically excluded from the LMC survey. This

factor should cause the LMC survey counts to be

lower than the CCD survey counts.

6) The CCD state nonfiscal survey described

librarians and media specialists as professionals

working with “books and other printed materials.”

The library and media support staff description did

not exclude working with books and printed

materials but focused on audiovisual equipment

and materials. The implication was that

professionals who worked with books and printed

materials were librarians and media specialists and
60

those who worked with other resources were

support staff. The LMC survey did not address

this issue. If the respondent viewed this distinction

as important, this factor should cause the LMC

survey counts to be higher than the CCD survey

counts.

Related Report Sections

See Section 3.3B. 

Section 3.3B LMC and CCD State Nonfiscal

Survey (Public): Librarian Estimates 

Comparison 

The LMC survey state-certified library media

specialists estimates were compared to the CCD state

nonfiscal survey librarians and media specialists counts.

Hypothesis

There are several possible reasons for differences in

estimates as described in the Section 3.3A. Three could

result in lower counts and three could result in higher

counts for the LMC survey. The main considerations

are: 1) the CCD state nonfiscal survey collected in FTE

while the LMC survey collected counts, and 2) the

LMC survey included only state-certified specialists in

this estimate while the CCD state nonfiscal survey also

included other librarians and professionals working in

the library. These factors may cancel each other. 

Principal Finding: The counts of library media

specialists differed between surveys.

Tables

 Table 3-18 shows the data comparison results.

Items

See Section 3.3A.

Results in a Nutshell

The LMC survey state estimates were generally higher

than the CCD state nonfiscal survey counts. This may

be due to the different units of collection. It suggests,

however, the surveys’ terminology and definitions have

a strong influence on reporting. The LMC survey

estimation also may be a factor.

Basic Findings

The estimates from the LMC survey were generally

higher than the CCD state nonfiscal survey counts. The

ratios ranged from 0.80 to 3.56 with a national average

of 1.32. Only five states had ratios of less than 1.0.

The 928 reported for California was probably an error

as discussed in Section 3.2B.
61

Table 3-18. Library Media Specialist/Librarian Estimates for Public Schools:

The Library Media Center Survey Compared to the Common Core of Data State Nonfiscal Survey by

State, 1993-94

By Alphabetical State Order By Descending LMC/CCD Ratio

LMC Survey CCD Survey LMC/CCD LMC/CCD

(C1) (C2) (C1/C2) (C1/C2)

United States 66,682.2 50,501 1.32 United States 1.32

Alabama 1,246.6 1,194 1.04 Rhode Island 3.56

Alaska 253.2 156 1.62 California 2.81

Arizona 825.2 773 1.07 South Dakota 2.78

Arkansas 1,101.2 948 1.16 Montana 2.64

California 2,608.7 928 2.81 North Dakota 2.56

Colorado 754.4 704 1.07 Wyoming 2.17

Connecticut 707.1 654 1.08 Iowa 2.08

Delaware 143.3 116 1.24 Massachusetts 2.05

District of Columbia 156.8 173 0.91 Idaho 1.91

Florida 2,370.4 2,513 0.94 Nebraska 1.74

Georgia 1,969.3 2,053 0.96 Missouri 1.69

Hawaii 230.2 286 0.80 Oklahoma 1.66

Idaho 320.9 168 1.91 Alaska 1.62

Illinois 2,936.1 1,973 1.49 Maine 1.60

Indiana 1,457.5 1,047 1.39 Kansas 1.55

Iowa 1,354.0 652 2.08 West Virginia 1.53

Kansas 1,503.7 973 1.55 Utah 1.51

Kentucky 1,420.1 1,187 1.20 New Mexico 1.49

Louisiana 1,240.1 1,217 1.02 Ohio 1.49

Maine 384.5 241 1.60 Illinois 1.49

Maryland 1,239.1 1,078 1.15 Minnesota 1.45

Massachusetts 1,160.7 567 2.05 Pennsylvania 1.44

Michigan 2,022.1 1,500 1.35 Vermont 1.43

Minnesota 1,429.6 984 1.45 Wisconsin 1.43

Mississippi 780.8 640 1.22 Indiana 1.39

Missouri 2,130.2 1,261 1.69 Michigan 1.35

Montana 895.9 339 2.64 New York 1.34

Nebraska 973.4 558 1.74 New Jersey 1.25

Nevada 281.1 239 1.18 Delaware 1.24

New Hampshire 301.4 254 1.19 Texas 1.23

New Jersey 2,251.9 1,800 1.25 Mississippi 1.22

New Mexico 362.7 243 1.49 Oregon 1.21

New York 3,987.0 2,983 1.34 Kentucky 1.20

North Carolina 2,203.3 2,151 1.02 New Hampshire 1.19

North Dakota 458.5 179 2.56 Tennessee 1.18

Ohio 2,650.3 1,776 1.49 Nevada 1.18

Oklahoma 1,429.5 860 1.66 Arkansas 1.16

Oregon 802.9 665 1.21 Maryland 1.15

Pennsylvania 3,120.9 2,170 1.44 Connecticut 1.08

Rhode Island 292.0 82 3.56 South Carolina 1.08

South Carolina 1,167.5 1,085 1.08 Colorado 1.07

South Dakota 578.6 208 2.78 Arizona 1.07

Tennessee 1,514.4 1,280 1.18 Washington 1.07

Texas 5,100.8 4,143 1.23 Alabama 1.04

Utah 403.8 267 1.51 North Carolina 1.02

Vermont 284.2 199 1.43 Louisiana 1.02

Virginia 1,783.4 1,945 0.92 Georgia 0.96

Washington 1,339.3 1,255 1.07 Florida 0.94

West Virginia 550.3 360 1.53 Virginia 0.92

Wisconsin 1,910.8 1,339 1.43 District of Columbia 0.91

Wyoming 292.4 135 2.17 Hawaii 0.80

Abbreviations: CCD = Common Core of Data LMC = Library Media Center

Notes:

The CCD state nonfiscal survey collects data in full-time equivalents, while the LMC survey collects counts. For the LMC survey, the

data include those working with computer resources. For the CCD survey, the data may include library media specialists/ librarians

providing district and regional level media services.

Source: 

1993-94 Library Media Center Survey data file (U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics)

1993-94 Common Core of Data State NonfiscalSurvey data file (U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics)
62

Library Media Specialist Surveys Compared to Other

Surveys

Section 3.4A LMS and SASS Surveys (Public,

Private and BIA): Librarian Classification of Main

Assignment, and Full-Time and Part-Time

Definitions 

Definitions and Items

LMS

LMS Item 2 = “How do you classify your

MAIN assignment at THIS

school (i.e., the activity at

which you spend MOST of

your time) this school year?”

LMS Check Box 1 = “Itinerant library media

specialist/librarian (i.e., your

assignment requires you to

provide library media services

at more than one school)”

LMS Check Box 2 = “Regular full-time library

media specialist/librarian at

this school”

LMS Check Box 3 = “Part-time library media

specialist/librarian”

LMS Check Box 4 = “Long-term substitute library

media specialist/librarian (i.e.,

your assignment requires that

you fill the role of a regular

library media specialist/

librarian on a long-term basis,

but you are still considered a

substitute)”

LMS Check Box 5 = “Classroom teacher”

LMS Check Box 6 = “Other professional staff (e.g.,

counselor, curriculum

coordinator, administrator)”

LMS Check Box 7 = “Unpaid parent volunteer”

LMS Check Box 8 = “Library aide”

LMS Check Box 9 = “Support staff (e.g., secretary,

clerk, etc.)”

SASS

SASS Item 16e = “Library media specialists or

librarians - part-time”

SASS Item 17e = “Library media specialists or

librarians - full-time”

Discussion

There was no definition for specialists/librarians on

either survey. For the SASS survey, a count is

requested for “library media specialists or librarians.”

The SASS survey said to report by function. The LMS

survey stated that it is “intended for the school

employee who is responsible for this school’s library,

that is, the library media specialist or librarian.” A

definition of the library follows, effectively defining

librarians. The definition was the same as the one for

the LMC survey. 

There were two comparisons that can be made: 

1) The respondent’s main assignment on the LMS

survey could be compared to the SASS survey

responses. This comparison could be done at the

school level for all types of schools. The LMS

survey asked the respondent to indicate their main

assignment: librarian, teacher, other professional

staff, parent volunteer, library aide, or support

staff. The SASS survey requested counts of library

media specialists or librarians by function, not

occupation. 

Agreement between the two surveys’ responses for

each school was expected. For example, if the

LMS survey respondent was a full-time librarian,

the SASS survey for the same school should have

a count of at least one for full-time

specialists/librarians. If the LMS survey

respondent was a teacher working part time in the

library, the SASS survey should have at least one

for the part-time specialist/librarian category. 

2) For those LMS survey respondents who classify

their main assignment as librarians, full-time and

part-time reporting can be compared between the

LMS and SASS surveys. Specialists/librarians

indicated status as itinerant, full time, part time or

long-term substitute on the LMS survey. The

SASS survey counts of specialists/librarians were

by full time and part time. This comparison could
63

be done at the state level for public and BIA Tables 3-19 and 3-20 show the relationships for linked

schools. schools. These schools could be in-scope or out-ofThe instructions for volunteers differed between the checks how the SASS survey respondent reported.

surveys. The SASS survey did not mention volunteers Table 3-20 presents the opposite viewpoint of looking

or state that staff must be paid. The LMS survey at the SASS survey response and then checks how the

separated parent volunteers . For the private school LMS survey respondent reported. 31

findings, the lack of instructions concerning volunteers

on the SASS survey was a notable factor: 5.7 percent

of the part-time staff reported on the SASS survey for

private schools were volunteers per the LMS survey. 

The instructions for reporting part-time staff differed. Results in a Nutshell

The SASS survey said to report employees who serve

more than one function as part time under each function

and to report shared employees as part time. The LMS

survey did not address these issues. The findings

suggested that the part-time instructions on the SASS

survey work well. Classroom teachers and other

professional staff working part time in the library were

reported on the SASS survey as part-time

specialists/librarians as instructed.

Related Report Sections

See Sections 3.4B and 3.4C.

Section 3.4B LMS and SASS Surveys (Public,

Private and BIA): Librarian Classification of Main

Assignment Counts 

Comparison Table 3-19 starts with the LMS survey responses and

The LMS respondent’s main assignment was compared

to the SASS survey counts of full-time and part-time

specialist/librarians.

Hypothesis

The responses for each school are expected to agree

between the surveys.

Principal Findings: The reporting between surveys

for full-time librarians was fairly consistent. The

reporting for part-time librarians was not.

Tables

scope. Table 3-19 presents the LMS response and then

Items

See Section 3.4A.

There was high agreement in reporting for full-time

librarians between surveys for public and BIA schools.

There were, however, a notable number of cases where

a full-time respondent on the LMS survey was reported

as part time on the SASS survey for private schools.

Also, there were a notable number of part-time

specialist/librarians on the LMS survey reported as full

time on the SASS survey for all types of schools. The

presence or absence of instructions for reporting parttime staff serving more than one function or school and

instructions for volunteers were important factors for

the surveys.

Intersurvey Agreement and Disagreement

Intersurvey Agreement

shows the matching school’s response on the SASS

survey. It shows a consistency in reporting across types

of schools. It also shows high agreement in reporting

for full-time librarians between surveys for public and

BIA schools. The agreement between full timers on the

LMS survey and full timers on the SASS survey was

82.3 percent for the public schools, 77.0 percent for the

private schools, and 91.2 percent for the BIA schools.

The agreement between part timers on the LMS survey

and part timers on the SASS survey was lower, but

again similar, for all three types of schools: 63.3

percent for the public schools, 70.0 percent for the

private schools, and 56. 3 percent for the BIA schools.

Table 3-20 starts with the SASS survey responses and

examines the matching school’s response on the LMS

survey. There was fairly high agreement for schools

reporting at least one full-time library media

specialist/librarian on the SASS survey. The agreement

for a regular full-time specialist or librarian completing

the LMS survey was: 73.3 percent of the public

Although some respondents other than the parent

31

volunteers may be volunteers, this report assumes all

respondents except the parent volunteers are paid staff.
64

schools, 73.4 percent of the private schools, and 75.4 The nonrespondent category on Table 3-20 for the LMS

percent of the BIA schools. The agreement between surveys is notable. For full-time staff, the

part timers reported on the SASS survey to part timers nonrespondent rates were 9.5 percent for the public

answering the LMS survey was good when the part- schools, 6.7 percent for the private schools, and 4.3

time library media specialists/librarians, itinerant percent for the BIA schools. For part-time staff, the

specialists/librarians, long-term substitute librarian, nonrespondent rates were 7.5 percent for the public

teachers and other professional staff are added together schools, 9.1 percent for the private schools, and 13.8

(the SASS survey says to apportion reporting by percent for the BIA schools.

function): 66.7 percent for public schools, 55.6 percent

for private schools, and 65.4 percent for BIA schools.

Intersurvey Disagreement

Table 3-19 shows how the SASS survey respondent

reported when the LMS survey respondent reported one

full-time or one part-time librarian. The instances of a

full timer on the LMS survey reported as a part timer on

the SASS survey were relatively low for the public and

BIA schools, 8.8 and 5.3 percent, respectively. It was

notable, 18.4 percent, for the private schools. Cases

where the part-time library media specialist on the LMS

survey was reported as full time on the SASS survey are

notable: 25.9 percent for public schools, 17.4 percent

for private schools, and 25.0 percent for BIA schools.

Table 3-20 shows how the LMS survey respondent

reported when the SASS survey reported at least one

full-time specialist/librarian. Most of the difference in

public school full-time counts between the surveys was

due to 141 (9.5 percent) LMS survey nonrespondents,

79 (5.3 percent) who reported as itinerant librarians,

and 74 (5.0 percent) who were part-time librarians. For

private schools, most of the difference was due to 63

(10.5 percent) reporting as part time, and 40 (6.7

percent) nonrespondents on the LMS surveys. For the

BIA schools, the bulk of the differences was divided

fairly evenly over four (5.8 percent) part timers, four

(5.8 percent) classroom teachers, three (4.3 percent)

itinerant librarians, and three (4.3 percent)

nonrespondents.

Table 3-20 also shows how the LMS survey respondent

reported when the SASS survey reported at least one

part-time specialist/librarian. The rates of library aides

and parent volunteers on the LMS survey reported as

part-time specialists/librarians on the SASS survey are

notable.

Other Findings

Nonrespondents

Section 3.4C LMS and SASS Surveys (Public and

BIA): Librarian Full-Time and Part-Time

Estimates

Comparison

Estimates of full-time and part-time

specialists/librarians were compared by state and by

type of school between the LMS and SASS surveys.

Hypothesis

The SASS survey estimates should be higher than the

LMS survey estimates primarily because the LMS

survey covers only the respondent. 

Principal Findings: The reporting for full-time and

part-time specialists was consistent across surveys.

Tables

Tables 3-21 through 3-25 show the estimates. 

Items

See Section 3.4A.

Results in a Nutshell

Expectations were met at the national level and for most

states. Estimation may be the cause for states not

meeting expectations.

Basic Findings

Because the SASS survey was a sample of the CCD

universe, the results of a data comparison between the

LMS survey and the SASS survey should be (and were)

similar. The public school LMS/CCD survey ratio for

librarians and media specialists was 0.72 (see Section

3.6B). The ratios of the LMS survey estimates to the

SASS survey estimates were 0.57 and 0.80 for public
65

and BIA schools, respectively, for full-time

specialists/librarians.

For those selecting the part-time check box, the ratios

were 0.27 and 0.61 for the public and BIA schools,

respectively. As shown in Table 3-24, however, a

more accurate picture of the public schools part timers

includes itinerant and long-term substitute librarians

and results in a ratio of 0.61.

Other Findings

Estimation

For some states on Table 3-23, there was zero reporting

on one survey, but data reported on the other survey.

The ratios were shown as zero. As Table 3-24 shows,

however, the zero totals for the LMS survey virtually

disappeared when the itinerant and long-term substitute

specialists/librarians also were assumed to be part time.
66

Table 3-19. Full-Time and Part-Time Counts for Library Media Specialists/Librarians by Type of School: 

The Schools and Staffing Survey Compared to the Library Media Specialist Survey 

for Linked Schools, 1993-94

 

Specialist/Librarian on the LMS Survey

Full Time Part Time

Public Private BIA Public Private BIA 

LMS LMS LMS LMS LMS LMS

(C1) (C2) (C3) (C4) (C5) (C6)

Specialist/ Full time 1,086 439 52 74 63 4

Librarian

on the (82.3%) (77.0%) (91.2%) (25.9%) (17.4%) (25.0%)

SASS

Survey Part time 116 105 3 181 254 9

(8.8%) (18.4%) (5.3%) (63.3%) (70.0%) (56.3%)

Other 117 26 2 31 46 3

(8.9%) (4.6%) (3.5%) (10.8%) (12.7%) (18.8%)

Total 1,319 570 57 286 363 16

Abbreviations:

BIA = Bureau of Indian Affairs

LMS = Library Media Specialist/Librarian Survey

SASS = Schools and Staffing Survey

Notes:

Linked = Linked schools are those matching by identification number between surveys. The schools are on both

surveys’ mailing lists, that is, sample. 

Other = Either the school was a nonrespondent or there were no specialists/librarians reported. Nonrespondent

schools either are a nonresponse or have insufficient response: there is a school but the responses are

insufficient for inclusion in the tabulated data. 

Source: 1993–94 Library Media Specialist/Librarian Survey data file (U.S. Department of Education, National

Center for Education Statistics)

1993–94 Schools and Staffing Survey data file (U.S. Department of Education, National Center for

Education Statistics)
67

Table 3-20. Librarian Classification of Main Assignment Counts by Type of School:

The Library Media Specialist Survey Compared to the Schools and Staffing Survey 

for Linked Schools, 1993-94

LMS Survey - Classification of At Least One Specialist/Librarian on the SASS Survey who is:

Main Assignment 

 

 (C1)

Full Time Part Time

Public Private BIA Public Private BIA

 (C2) (C3) (C4) (C5) (C6) (C7)

Regular full-time 1,086 439 52 116 105 3

specialist/librarian

(73.3%) (73.4%) (75.4%) (16.2%) (17.1%) (10.3%)

Part-time specialist/librarian 74 63 4 181 254 9

(5.0%) (10.5%) (5.8%) (25.2%) (41.4%) (31.0%)

Itinerant specialist/librarian 79 8 3 241 9 7

(5.3%) (1.3%) (4.3%) (33.6%) (1.5%) (24.1%)

Long-term substitute specialist/ 9 2 0 4 5 0

librarian

(1.0%) (0.3%) (0.0%) (0.6%) (0.8%) (0.0%)

Classroom teacher 19 11 4 38 51 2

(1.0%) (1.8%) (5.8%) (5.3%) (8.3%) (6.9%)

Other professional staff 2 8 1 14 22 1

(0.1%) (1.3%) (1.4%) (2.0%) (3.6%) (3.4%)

Support staff 5 4 0 3 9 0

(0.3%) (0.7%) (0.0%) (0.4%) (1.5%) (0.0%)

Library aide 45 1 1 32 9 2

(3.0%) (0.2%) (1.4%) (4.5%) (1.5%) (6.9%)

Parent volunteer 0 7 0 0 35 1

(0.0%) (1.2%) (0.0%) (0.0%) (5.7%) (3.4%)

Nonrespondent 141 40 3 54 56 4

2

(9.5%) (6.7%) (4.3%) (7.5%) (9.1%) (13.8%)

Out-of-scope 22 15 1 34 58 0

3

(1.5%) (2.5%) (1.4%) (4.7%) (9.5%) (0.0%)

Total 1,482 598 69 717 613 29

Abbreviations:

LMS = Library Media Specialist/Librarian Survey SASS = Schools and Staffing Survey

Notes:

Linked = Linked schools are those matching by identification number between schools. The schools are on both

surveys’ mailing lists, that is, sample. 

Nonrespondent = Either a nonresponse or insufficient response: the school has a librarian, but the remainder of the survey

responses are insufficient for inclusion in the tabulated data.

Out-of-scope = For the LMS survey, the school reported no librarians or has no library. 

Source: 1993–94 Library Media Specialist/Librarian Survey data file (U.S. Department of Education, National Center

for Education 

Statistics)

1993–94 Schools and Staffing Survey data file (U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education

Statistics)
68

Table 3-21. Full-Time Library Media Specialist/Librarian Estimates for Public Schools:

The Library Media Specialist Survey Compared to the Schools and Staffing Survey 

by State, 1993-94

By Alphabetical State Order By Descending LMS/SASS Ratio

LMS Survey SASS Survey LMS/SASS LMS/SASS

(C1) (C2) (C1/C2) (C1/C2)

United States 29,796.4 52,032.1 0.57 United States 0.57

Alabama 1,107.7 1,199.7 0.92 South Dakota 1.54

Alaska 15.0 187.1 0.08 North Dakota 1.37

Arizona 458.0 834.5 0.55 Iowa 1.33

Arkansas 851.6 951.1 0.90 Oklahoma 1.31

California 2,306.3 2,494.9 0.92 Maine 1.29

Colorado 482.7 928.5 0.52 Montana 1.27

Connecticut 89.0 599.2 0.15 Wyoming 1.17

Delaware 29.2 140.6 0.21 Kansas 1.17

District of Columbia 12.7 157.4 0.08 Nebraska 1.05

Florida 755.3 2,512.4 0.30 Missouri 1.00

Georgia 674.9 1,917.0 0.35 California 0.92

Hawaii 56.0 259.3 0.22 Alabama 0.92

Idaho 203.5 238.9 0.85 Mississippi 0.91

Illinois 1,140.2 2,081.2 0.55 New Mexico 0.90

Indiana 665.5 1,195.8 0.56 Arkansas 0.90

Iowa 792.8 596.3 1.33 Utah 0.89

Kansas 786.6 674.1 1.17 Idaho 0.85

Kentucky 370.9 1,097.8 0.34 Louisiana 0.82

Louisiana 935.8 1,146.0 0.82 West Virginia 0.77

Maine 313.7 242.4 1.29 Texas 0.74

Maryland 141.5 1,026.8 0.14 New Hampshire 0.74

Massachusetts 397.8 799.3 0.50 North Carolina 0.69

Michigan 507.2 1,724.3 0.29 Tennessee 0.67

Minnesota 533.6 831.3 0.64 Minnesota 0.64

Mississippi 709.9 782.8 0.91 Oregon 0.58

Missouri 1,115.6 1,113.3 1.00 Indiana 0.56

Montana 347.7 273.1 1.27 Arizona 0.55

Nebraska 477.0 453.1 1.05 Illinois 0.55

Nevada 99.2 311.2 0.32 Colorado 0.52

New Hampshire 155.7 210.3 0.74 Massachusetts 0.50

New Jersey 108.1 1,549.2 0.07 Rhode Island 0.48

New Mexico 344.7 383.1 0.90 South Carolina 0.46

New York 551.0 2,978.2 0.19 Wisconsin 0.45

North Carolina 1,355.3 1,951.3 0.69 Vermont 0.42

North Dakota 149.0 108.9 1.37 Virginia 0.42

Ohio 844.0 2,093.1 0.40 Ohio 0.40

Oklahoma 1,179.4 897.7 1.31 Pennsylvania 0.40

Oregon 304.9 523.6 0.58 Georgia 0.35

Pennsylvania 786.3 1,981.3 0.40 Kentucky 0.34

Rhode Island 68.9 144.3 0.48 Nevada 0.32

South Carolina 499.3 1,091.1 0.46 Washington 0.31

South Dakota 286.1 186.4 1.54 Florida 0.30

Tennessee 882.6 1,312.0 0.67 Michigan 0.29

Texas 3,298.0 4,442.2 0.74 Hawaii 0.22

Utah 328.3 367.8 0.89 Delaware 0.21

Vermont 77.6 183.4 0.42 New York 0.19

Virginia 716.0 1,691.1 0.42 Connecticut 0.15

Washington 402.4 1,280.8 0.31 Maryland 0.14

West Virginia 311.9 404.4 0.77 District of Columbia 0.08

Wisconsin 592.5 1,331.2 0.45 Alaska 0.08

Wyoming 177.3 151.5 1.17 New Jersey 0.07

Abbreviations:

LMS = Library Media Specialist

SASS = Schools and Staffing Survey

Notes:

The LMS survey covers the respondent only.

Source:

1993-94 Library Media Specialist Survey data file (U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics)

1993-94 Schools and Staffing Survey data file (U. S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics)
69

Table 3-22. Full-Time Library Media Specialist/Librarian Estimates for Bureau of Indian Affair

Schools: The Library Media Specialist Survey Compared to the Schools and Staffing Survey 

by State, 1993-94

By Alphabetical State Order By Descending LMS/SASS Ratio

LMS Survey SASS Survey LMS/SASS LMS/SASS

(C1) (C2) (C1/C2) (C1/C2)

United States 75.6 94.2 0.80 United States 0.80

Arizona 24.2 30.2 0.80 California 1.54

California 1.5 1.0 1.54 Oregon 1.30

Kansas 1.0 1.0 0.91 Wisconsin 1.15

Michigan 0.7 1.0 0.72 North Carolina 1.08

Minnesota 2.5 3.1 0.82 Oklahoma 1.08

Mississippi 1.1 0.0 0.00 North Dakota 1.04

New Mexico 20.3 22.2 0.92 New Mexico 0.92

North Carolina 2.2 2.0 1.08 Kansas 0.91

North Dakota 8.3 8.0 1.04 Minnesota 0.82

Oklahoma 2.2 2.0 1.08 Arizona 0.80

Oregon 1.3 1.0 1.30 Michigan 0.72

South Dakota 7.8 18.5 0.42 Washington 0.64

Utah 0.0 1.0 0.00 South Dakota 0.42

Washington 1.3 2.0 0.64 Mississippi 0.00

Wisconsin 1.1 1.0 1.15 Utah 0.00

Abbreviations:

LMS = Library Media Specialist/Librarian

SASS = Schools and Staffing Survey

Notes:

The LMS survey covers the respondent only.

Source:

1993-94 Library Media Specialist /Librarian Survey data file (U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics)

1993-94 Schools and Staffing Survey data file (U. S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics)
70

Table 3-23. Part-Time Library Media Specialist/Librarian Estimates for Public Schools:

The Library Media Specialist Survey Compared to the Schools and Staffing Survey 

by State, 1993-94

By Alphabetical State Order By Descending LMS/SASS Ratio

LMS Survey SASS Survey LMS/SASS LMS/SASS

(C1) (C2) (C1/C2) (C1/C2)

United States 6,325.1 23,093.5 0.27 United States 0.27

Alabama 15.1 77.6 0.19 Georgia 0.92

Alaska 38.9 127.9 0.30 California 0.76

Arizona 0.0 165.8 0.00 West Virginia 0.64

Arkansas 54.6 182.8 0.30 North Dakota 0.63

California 1,751.0 2,318.3 0.76 South Dakota 0.59

Colorado 151.7 311.0 0.49 Montana 0.57

Connecticut 42.5 219.1 0.19 Nebraska 0.51

Delaware 1.9 36.8 0.05 Vermont 0.51

District of Columbia 0.0 2.5 0.00 Colorado 0.49

Florida 2.3 52.6 0.04 Idaho 0.46

Georgia 56.4 61.3 0.92 New Jersey 0.38

Hawaii 0.0 2.6 0.00 South Carolina 0.36

Idaho 101.6 219.6 0.46 Illinois 0.35

Illinois 432.9 1,223.2 0.35 Oklahoma 0.33

Indiana 39.0 603.9 0.06 Michigan 0.32

Iowa 188.0 887.1 0.21 Washington 0.31

Kansas 78.7 809.5 0.10 Alaska 0.30

Kentucky 66.4 361.9 0.18 Arkansas 0.30

Louisiana 63.7 258.4 0.25 Missouri 0.27

Maine 20.0 213.5 0.09 Wisconsin 0.25

Maryland 29.2 284.0 0.10 Louisiana 0.25

Massachusetts 43.1 570.2 0.08 Utah 0.22

Michigan 207.9 641.1 0.32 Virginia 0.22

Minnesota 62.1 671.1 0.09 Iowa 0.21

Mississippi 2.0 67.9 0.03 New Hampshire 0.21

Missouri 285.7 1,074.1 0.27 Oregon 0.20

Montana 310.6 542.7 0.57 Alabama 0.19

Nebraska 270.5 527.9 0.51 Connecticut 0.19

Nevada 6.7 43.1 0.16 Kentucky 0.18

New Hampshire 31.8 154.2 0.21 North Carolina 0.17

New Jersey 274.5 717.4 0.38 Nevada 0.16

New Mexico 13.6 138.4 0.10 Tennessee 0.15

New York 0.0 1,016.2 0.00 Wyoming 0.15

North Carolina 43.2 260.6 0.17 Maryland 0.10

North Dakota 226.5 359.8 0.63 New Mexico 0.10

Ohio 64.7 1,285.4 0.05 Rhode Island 0.10

Oklahoma 253.7 772.7 0.33 Kansas 0.10

Oregon 80.6 402.5 0.20 Maine 0.09

Pennsylvania 0.0 1,275.9 0.00 Minnesota 0.09

Rhode Island 15.5 158.6 0.10 Massachusetts 0.08

South Carolina 20.8 57.4 0.36 Indiana 0.06

South Dakota 237.0 403.6 0.59 Delaware 0.05

Tennessee 42.0 283.5 0.15 Ohio 0.05

Texas 54.6 1,166.6 0.05 Texas 0.05

Utah 39.6 178.2 0.22 Florida 0.04

Vermont 63.6 124.5 0.51 Mississippi 0.03

Virginia 22.4 103.1 0.22 Arizona 0.00

Washington 152.3 496.1 0.31 Hawaii 0.00

West Virginia 139.6 218.5 0.64 New York 0.00

Wisconsin 204.5 810.5 0.25 District of Columbia 0.00

Wyoming 22.3 152.3 0.15 Pennsylvania 0.00

Abbreviations: LMS = Library Media Specialist/Librarian SASS = Schools and Staffing Survey

Notes:

The LMS survey covers the respondent only.

Source:

1993-94 Library Media Specialist/Librarian Survey data file (U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics)

1993-94 Schools and Staffing Survey data file (U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics)
71

Table 3-24. Part-Time, Itinerant or Long-Term Substitute Library Media Specialist/Librarian

Estimates for Public Schools: The Library Media Specialist Survey Compared to the Schools and

Staffing Survey by State, 1993-94

By Alphabetical State Order By Descending LMS/SASS Ratio

LMS Survey SASS Survey LMS/SASS LMS/SASS

(C1) (C2) (C1/C2) (C1/C2)

United States 14,160.9 23,093.5 0.61 United States 0.61

Alabama 53.8 77.6 0.69 Mississippi 2.11

Alaska 38.9 127.9 0.30 Hawaii 1.42

Arizona 79.4 165.8 0.48 Arkansas 1.21

Arkansas 221.3 182.8 1.21 West Virginia 1.17

California 2,404.2 2,318.3 1.04 Virginia 1.11

Colorado 218.2 311.0 0.70 California 1.04

Connecticut 73.0 219.1 0.33 Nebraska 1.03

Delaware 5.7 36.8 0.15 Georgia 0.92

District of Columbia 0.0 2.5 0.00 South Dakota 0.89

Florida 21.7 52.6 0.41 Illinois 0.88

Georgia 56.4 61.3 0.92 Montana 0.86

Hawaii 3.7 2.6 1.42 North Dakota 0.86

Idaho 123.0 219.6 0.56 Oklahoma 0.80

Illinois 1,072.6 1,223.2 0.88 Maine 0.77

Indiana 108.6 603.9 0.18 Tennessee 0.77

Iowa 684.6 887.1 0.77 Iowa 0.77

Kansas 586.3 809.5 0.72 Vermont 0.73

Kentucky 124.5 361.9 0.34 Kansas 0.72

Louisiana 167.9 258.4 0.65 Texas 0.72

Maine 165.3 213.5 0.77 Missouri 0.71

Maryland 29.2 284.0 0.10 Colorado 0.70

Massachusetts 301.3 570.2 0.53 Alabama 0.69

Michigan 343.9 641.1 0.54 Louisiana 0.65

Minnesota 290.7 671.1 0.43 Wyoming 0.64

Mississippi 143.3 67.9 2.11 North Carolina 0.64

Missouri 757.5 1,074.1 0.71 Utah 0.62

Montana 469.4 542.7 0.86 Idaho 0.56

Nebraska 543.9 527.9 1.03 New Mexico 0.55

Nevada 6.7 43.1 0.16 Michigan 0.54

New Hampshire 69.0 154.2 0.45 Massachusetts 0.53

New Jersey 354.8 717.4 0.49 New Jersey 0.49

New Mexico 76.0 138.4 0.55 Wisconsin 0.49

New York 105.9 1,016.2 0.10 Arizona 0.48

North Carolina 165.5 260.6 0.64 New Hampshire 0.45

North Dakota 308.9 359.8 0.86 Minnesota 0.43

Ohio 249.0 1,285.4 0.19 South Carolina 0.42

Oklahoma 619.2 772.7 0.80 Rhode Island 0.42

Oregon 126.6 402.5 0.31 Florida 0.41

Pennsylvania 239.1 1,275.9 0.19 Washington 0.36

Rhode Island 66.3 158.6 0.42 Kentucky 0.34

South Carolina 24.1 57.4 0.42 Connecticut 0.33

South Dakota 359.7 403.6 0.89 Oregon 0.31

Tennessee 219.1 283.5 0.77 Alaska 0.30

Texas 835.6 1,166.6 0.72 Ohio 0.19

Utah 110.6 178.2 0.62 Pennsylvania 0.19

Vermont 91.3 124.5 0.73 Indiana 0.18

Virginia 114.6 103.1 1.11 Nevada 0.16

Washington 179.2 496.1 0.36 Delaware 0.15

West Virginia 254.9 218.5 1.17 New York 0.10

Wisconsin 399.5 810.5 0.49 Maryland 0.10

Wyoming 97.0 152.3 0.64 District of Columbia 0.00

Abbreviations: LMS = Library Media Specialist/Librarian SASS = Schools and Staffing Survey

Notes:

The LMS survey covers the respondent only.

Source:

1993-94 Library Media Specialist /Librarian Survey data file (U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics)

1993-94 Schools and Staffing Survey data file (U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics)
72

Table 3-25. Part-Time Library Media Specialist/Librarian Estimates for Bureau of Indian Affair

Schools: The Library Media Specialist Survey Compared to the Schools and Staffing

 Survey by State, 1993-94

By Alphabetical State Order By Descending LMS/SASS Ratio

LMS Survey SASS Survey LMS/SASS LMS/SASS

(C1) (C2) (C1/C2) (C1/C2)

United States 19.1 31.1 0.61 United States 0.61

Arizona 2.2 9.0 0.24 Montana 2.13

Florida 1.2 1.0 1.21 Nevada 1.28

Iowa 1.1 1.0 1.13 Florida 1.21

Mississippi 0.0 1.0 0.00 Wyoming 1.21

Montana 2.1 1.0 2.13 Washington 1.16

Nevada 1.3 1.0 1.28 Iowa 1.13

New Mexico 4.7 6.0 0.78 New Mexico 0.78

North Dakota 2.5 4.0 0.63 North Dakota 0.63

South Dakota 1.5 5.1 0.30 South Dakota 0.30

Washington 1.2 1.0 1.16 Arizona 0.24

Wyoming 1.3 1.0 1.21 Mississippi 0.00

Abbreviations:

LMS = Library Media Specialist/Librarian

SASS = Schools and Staffing Survey

Notes:

The LMS survey covers the respondent only.

Source:

1993-94 Library Media Specialist/Librarian Survey data file (U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics)

1993-94 Schools and Staffing Survey data file (U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics)
73

Library Media Specialist Surveys Compared to Other

Surveys - continued

Section 3.5A LMS and SASS Survey (Public):

Librarian Role in Decision Making Definitions

Definitions and Items

LMS

LMS Item 21a = “For each of the following

statements, indicate whether you

strongly agree, somewhat agree,

somewhat disagree, or strongly

disagree.”

LMS Item 21b = “The school administration’s

behavior toward the library media

center staff is supportive and

encouraging.”

LMS Item 21f = “The principal talks with me

frequently about the library media

program.”

LMS Item 21o = “This school’s administration

knows the problems faced by the

library media staff.”

LMS Item 21g = “Most of my colleagues in this

school share my beliefs and values

about what the central mission of

the library media program should

be.”

LMS Item 21i = “There is a great deal of

cooperative effort among staff

members in this school.”

LMS Item 21u = “I plan with teachers for the

integration of library media services

into the curriculum.”

LMS Item 21w = “My role as a library media

specialist/librarian is well

understood by the faculty in this

school.”

SASS

SASS Item 33a = “Does this school have a decisionmaking body other than a school

board, student council,

parent/teacher association (PTA),

or parent/teacher organization

(PTO)?”

SASS Item 33c = “[The decision-making team]

Brings administrators and teachers

together on school resource issues”

Discussion

The public school SASS survey asked if there was a

school decision-making body that brings administrators,

teachers, parents, students, and other community

representatives together on school resource issues; it

did not refer to librarians. The public school LMS

survey asked for the library media specialist/librarian’s

opinion on factors relating to inclusion in school-wide

decision making. Both linked schools counts and

national estimates for the SASS survey and the LMS

survey can be examined for agreement. For example,

if there was a decision-making body, positive responses

on the LMS survey should indicated the

librarian/library media specialist was included. 

Responses to Items 21b through 21w on the LMS

survey were indicative of the inclusion or exclusion of

the librarian in any decision-making body.

For purposes of comparison (see Section 3.5B),

positive responses to two of Items 21b, 21f or 21o were

considered indicative of cooperation between the

librarian and the school’s administration. Positive

responses to two of Items 21g, 21i, 21u or 21w were

considered indicative of cooperation in decision making

between the librarian and the teaching staff.

Related Report Sections

See Section 3.5B. 
74

Section 3.5B LMS and SASS Survey (Public):

Librarian Role in Decision Making Counts indicated the presence of a decision-making body that

Comparison

Items on the SASS survey indicating the presence of a

decision-making body were compared to items

indicating the inclusion of the librarian in decisions on

the LMS survey.

Hypothesis

The data should show a consistency between the

surveys. 

Principal Findings: There was a fair amount of

consistency between the surveys. 

Tables

Table 3-26 shows the data comparison results.

Items

See Section 3.5A.

Results in a Nutshell

More than half of the specialists/librarians felt included

in decision making for schools reporting a decisionmaking body that brings administrators and teachers

together, according to the LMS survey. The percentage

of librarians who felt included in decision making was

higher for all schools, with or without a decisionmaking team, than for those with a decision-making

team. 

Intersurvey Agreement and Disagreement

Intersurvey Agreement

More than half of the specialists/librarians working for

linked schools reporting a decision-making team were

included in decision making. There were slightly more

included in decision making with administration 

than with teachers. On the SASS survey, 3,626 schools

brought administrators and teachers together. Of these,

980 linked to the LMS survey. For the 980 schools,

556 (56.7 percent) of the specialists/librarians reported

they were included in decision making with the school’s

administration. There were 514 (52.4 percent)

indicating involvement in decision making with the

school’s faculty. There were 526 (53.7 percent)

reporting they were included by both administrators and

faculty.

Intersurvey Disagreement 

For the 980 SASS survey schools reporting a decisionmaking body that brings administrators and teachers

together and linking to the LMS survey, 119 (12.1

percent) specialists/librarians reported no involvement

in decision making with administration on the LMS

survey. Another 161 (16.4 percent) reported no

inclusion in decision making with faculty. Sixty-seven

(6.8 percent) indicated no inclusion in decision making

in a joint librarian/administration/faculty team. 

This does not, however, necessarily indicate

disagreement in reporting between the surveys. The

SASS survey does not mention librarians as part of the

decision-making body. It may be that librarians are not

included on the teams for these schools.

Other Findings

Estimation

Table 3-26 shows estimates for all, not just linked, inscope schools for the two surveys for librarian

involvement in decision making. It was interesting that

the percentage of counts of librarians who felt included

in decision making was higher for all schools, 67.3

percent, than for the 980 schools with a decisionmaking team, 53.7 percent. Perhaps the presence of a

formal team clarified whether the librarian was or was

not included.
75

Table 3-26. Librarian Involvement in Decision-Making Counts and Estimates for Public Schools: 

the Library Media Specialist Survey Compared to the Schools and Staffing Survey, 1993-94

LMS Survey

Decision Making

Linked Schools1 All Schools

Team Exists Team May or May Not Exist

Librarian/Administration Librarian/Faculty Administration 

Librarian/Faculty/ Librarian/Faculty/Administration 

Counts Percentages Counts Percentages Counts Percentages Counts Percentages Estimates Percentages

 

Involvement 556 56.7 514 52.4 526 53.7 1,493 67.3 27,730.9 76.8 2

Noninvolvement 119 12.1 161 16.4 67 6.8 173 7.8 3,062.7 8.5

Nonrespondent 88 9.0 88 9.0 88 9.0 272 12.3 0.0 0.0 3

Neutral 0 0.0 0 0.0 82 8.4 279 12.6 5,327.8 14.7 4

Out-of-Scope 217 22.1 217 22.1 217 22.1 0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total 980 100.0 980 100.0 980 100.0 2,217 100.0 36,121.5 100.0

SASS Survey All Schools

Presence of a Decision Making Team5

Counts Percentages Estimates Percentages

Yes 3,626 41.4 33,764.7 41.8

No6

5,141 58.6 46,975.4 58.2

Total

In-Scope 8,767 100.0 80,740.1 100.0

Abbreviations:

LMS = Library Media Specialist/Librarian

SASS = Schools and Staffing Survey
76

Continued on next page

Table 3-26. Librarian Involvement in Decision-Making Counts and Estimates for Public Schools: 

the Library Media Specialist Survey Compared to the Schools and Staffing Survey, 1993-94 - Continued

Notes:

1. Linked schools are those that match by identification number between surveys. The schools are on both surveys' mailing list, that is, sample or universe. There were 980 linked

schools reporting a decision-making body that brought administrators and teachers together on school resource issues on the SASS survey and linked to the LMS survey.

2. Involvement = Those schools where the librarian reported attitudes that indicated involvement in decision-making.

3. Scope = Scope is the classification of survey units by type of response or nonresponse. For the LMS survey, there are in-scopes, nonrespondents, and out-of-scopes.

Nonrespondents are schools with a librarian and reporting at least certain items. Out-of-scopes are cases where there is no librarian. Nonrespondents are a combination or reported

data and missing responses; the school has a librarian, but the remainder of the responses are insufficient for inclusion in tabulated data.

4. Neutral = not meeting the criteria for involvement or noninvolvement at this level

5. There are no blank data fields for this item on the SASS survey.

6. There were 3,976 schools that reported no decision-making team. There were 1,165 schools that reported a team, but not one that brought administrators and teachers together.

Source:

1993-94 Library Media Specialist /Librarian Survey data file (U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics)

1993-94 Schools and Staffing Survey data file (U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics)
77

Library Media Specialist Surveys Compared to Other

Surveys - continued exceed the estimates for those reporting on the LMS

Section 3.6A LMS and CCD State Nonfiscal Survey

(Public): Librarian Definitions

Definitions and Items

LMS

LMS Item 2 = “How do you classify your

MAIN assignment at THIS

school (i.e., the activity at

which you spend MOST of

your time) this school year?”

Check Box 1 = “Itinerant library media

specialist/ librarian (i.e., your

assignment requires you to

provide library media services

at more than 1 school)”

Check Box 2 = “Regular full-time library

media specialist/librarian at

this school”

Check Box 3 = “Part-time library media

specialist/librarian”

Check Box 4 = “Long-term substitute library

media specialist/librarian (i.e.,

your assignment requires you

fill the role of a regular

library media specialist/

librarian on a long-term basis,

but you are still considered a

substitute)”

CCD

Item C04 (F04) = “Librarians/Medi a

Specialists”

Discussion

For specialists/librarians, the CCD state nonfiscal

survey counts and the public school LMS survey

estimates can be compared. The LMS survey

respondents who indicated the main assignment of a

library media specialist/librarian compared to those

counted as librarians and media specialists on the CCD

state nonfiscal survey. Because the LMS survey

counted only the respondent, the CCD state nonfiscal

survey counts for specialists/librarians should equal or

survey.

The CCD state nonfiscal survey suggested the librarians

and media specialists were in charge of books and

printed materials. Most libraries have a larger printed

collection than audiovisual or computer resources.

Also, traditionally the library is a depository of books

and other printed materials. Thus, it can be assumed

the CCD state nonfiscal survey counts the librarian in a

typical library in the specialist/librarian category. (see

the comparisons of definitions of personnel under

Section 4.0A.)

The LMS survey also indicated the librarian or media

specialist was the person in charge of the printed

collection. The LMS survey requested the “school

employee who is responsible for this school’s library,

that is, the library media specialist or librarian”

complete the survey. Because there was nothing

contradictory in the library definition, tradition would

cause the assumption that the librarian or media library

specialist was the person in charge of the printed

materials if the school had printed, audiovisual and

computer resources under different staffs. 

For the future, the resources invested in the three areas

(print, audiovisual and computer) may change in

proportions. If the majority of resources shift to

computer and/or audiovisual resources, the CCD state

nonfiscal survey counts for librarians and media

specialists may decline, and the count for the library

and media support staff may increase. The counts for

the LMS survey would not be affected.

Related Report Sections

See Section 3.6B.

Section 3.6B LMS and CCD State Nonfiscal Survey

(Public): Librarian Estimates 

Comparison

The estimates of specialists/librarians for the public

school LMS survey and the CCD state nonfiscal survey

were compared. 

Hypothesis
78

The main difference in counts should be due to the There were a few states where the CCD survey counts

CCD state nonfiscal survey inclusion of all librarians exceeded the LMS survey more than expected. This

while the LMS survey counts only the librarian. may be due to libraries headed by other professionals,

Principal Findings: The reporting between surveys

for librarians was generally consistent.

Tables

Table 3-27 shows the results. 

Items

See Section 3.6A.

Results in a Nutshell

Expectations were met at the national level and for the

majority of states.

Basic Findings

The expectation that the counts of all librarians on one

survey would exceed the counts of respondents on the

other survey was met at the national level and for most

states. The ratios shown in Table 3-27 ranged from

0.07 to 4.37. The average for the nation was 0.72. 

nonprofessionals or volunteers who were counted as

librarians/media specialists on the CCD state nonfiscal

survey. Another possible explanation lies in the

differing presentation of resources (printed, audiovisual

or computer) in the library definitions for the CCD

survey. See Section 4.0A.

 

There were 16 states in Table 3-27 for which the

estimate from the LMS survey exceeded the CCD state

nonfiscal survey’s count, the opposite of expectations.

Some of this may be differing units of collection or an

estimation issue as was indicated by the LMC survey

comparison to the CCD surveys.

Other Findings

Estimation

California’s report of 928.0 on the CCD state nonfiscal

survey appeared to be a data error. California ranked

first for all states for the number of specialists/librarians

according to the LMS survey data but twenty-fifth per

the CCD state nonfiscal survey. California ranked first

for this data on both the LMC and the SASS surveys.

State rankings are discussed further in Section 5.1.
79

Table 3-27. Library Media Specialist/Librarian Estimates for Public Schools:

The Library Media Specialist Survey Compared to the Common Core of Data State Nonfiscal Survey

by State, 1993-94

By Alphabetical State Order By Descending LMS/CCD Ratio

LMS Survey CCD Survey LMS/CCD LMS/CCD

(C1) (C2) (C1/C2) (C1/C2)

United States 36,121.6 50,501.0 0.72 United States 0.72

Alabama 1,122.8 1,194.0 0.94 California 4.37

Alaska 53.9 156.0 0.35 South Dakota 2.51

Arizona 458.0 773.0 0.59 North Dakota 2.10

Arkansas 906.2 948.0 0.96 Montana 1.94

California 4,057.3 928.0 4.37 Idaho 1.82

Colorado 634.5 704.0 0.90 Oklahoma 1.67

Connecticut 131.5 654.0 0.20 Iowa 1.50

Delaware 31.1 116.0 0.27 Wyoming 1.48

District of Columbia 12.7 173.0 0.07 New Mexico 1.47

Florida 757.5 2,513.0 0.30 Maine 1.38

Georgia 731.3 2,053.0 0.36 Utah 1.38

Hawaii 56.0 286.0 0.20 Nebraska 1.34

Idaho 305.1 168.0 1.82 West Virginia 1.25

Illinois 1,573.1 1,973.0 0.80 Mississippi 1.11

Indiana 704.5 1,047.0 0.67 Missouri 1.11

Iowa 980.9 652.0 1.50 Rhode Island 1.03

Kansas 865.4 973.0 0.89 Arkansas 0.96

Kentucky 437.4 1,187.0 0.37 Alabama 0.94

Louisiana 999.5 1,217.0 0.82 Colorado 0.90

Maine 333.7 241.0 1.38 Kansas 0.89

Maryland 170.6 1,078.0 0.16 Louisiana 0.82

Massachusetts 440.9 567.0 0.78 Texas 0.81

Michigan 715.0 1,500.0 0.48 Illinois 0.80

Minnesota 595.7 984.0 0.61 Massachusetts 0.78

Mississippi 711.9 640.0 1.11 New Hampshire 0.74

Missouri 1,401.3 1,261.0 1.11 Tennessee 0.72

Montana 658.3 339.0 1.94 Vermont 0.71

Nebraska 747.6 558.0 1.34 Indiana 0.67

Nevada 105.9 239.0 0.44 North Carolina 0.65

New Hampshire 187.5 254.0 0.74 Minnesota 0.61

New Jersey 382.6 1,800.0 0.21 Wisconsin 0.60

New Mexico 358.3 243.0 1.47 Arizona 0.59

New York 551.0 2,983.0 0.18 Oregon 0.58

North Carolina 1,398.5 2,151.0 0.65 Ohio 0.51

North Dakota 375.5 179.0 2.10 South Carolina 0.48

Ohio 908.7 1,776.0 0.51 Michigan 0.48

Oklahoma 1,433.1 860.0 1.67 Nevada 0.44

Oregon 385.5 665.0 0.58 Washington 0.44

Pennsylvania 786.3 2,170.0 0.36 Virginia 0.38

Rhode Island 84.4 82.0 1.03 Kentucky 0.37

South Carolina 520.1 1,085.0 0.48 Pennsylvania 0.36

South Dakota 523.1 208.0 2.51 Georgia 0.36

Tennessee 924.7 1,280.0 0.72 Alaska 0.35

Texas 3,352.6 4,143.0 0.81 Florida 0.30

Utah 367.9 267.0 1.38 Delaware 0.27

Vermont 141.2 199.0 0.71 New Jersey 0.21

Virginia 738.3 1,945.0 0.38 Connecticut 0.20

Washington 554.7 1,255.0 0.44 Hawaii 0.20

West Virginia 451.5 360.0 1.25 New York 0.18

Wisconsin 796.9 1,339.0 0.60 Maryland 0.16

Wyoming 199.6 135.0 1.48 District of Columbia 0.07

Abbreviations: CCD = Common Core of Data LMS = Library Media Specialist/Librarian

Notes:

The LMS survey covers the respondent only. The CCD is collected in full-time equivalents.

Source: 

1993-94 Library Media Specialist/Librarian Survey data file (U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics)

1993-94 Common Core of Data State Nonfiscal Survey data file (U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics)
80

CHAPTER 4. LIBRARY STAFF

Library Media Center Surveys Compared to Common and services provided by audiovisual

Core of Data State Nonfiscal Survey

Section 4.0A LMC and CCD State Nonfiscal

Survey (Public): Total Library Staff Definitions:

Definitions and Items

LMC

LMC Item 1a = “How many state-certified library

media specialists work in this

school’s library media center?”

LMC Item 1b = “How many professional staff

members working in this school’s

library media center are NOT

certified as library media

specialists?”

LMC Item 1c = “How many other PAID

employees work in this school’s

library media center?”

CCD

“Librarians and Media Specialists - 

Librarians are those professional staff members

and supervisors who are assigned specific duties

and school time to professional library service

activities, including: selecting, acquiring,

preparing, cataloging and circulating books and

other printed materials; planning the use of the

library by students, teachers and other members of

the instructional staff; and guiding individuals in

their use of library books and materials, whether

maintained separately or as a part of an

instructional materials center.”

“Library and Media Support Staff - 

Library support staff are those staff members who

render other professional library services,

including selecting, preparing, caring for and

making available to members of the instructional

staff the equipment, films, filmstrips,

transparencies, tapes, television programs and

similar materials, whether maintained separately or

as part of an instructional materials center.

C INCLUDE activities in the audiovisual center,

television studio, and related work-study areas

personnel.

C INCLUDE library aides and those involved in

library/media support.”

CCD Item C04 (FO4) = “Librarians/ Media

Specialists”

CCD Item C05 (F05) = “Library/Media Support

Staff”

Discussion

Estimates for library staff from the LMC survey can be

compared to the universe counts from the CCD state

nonfiscal survey. Table 4-1 shows key comparisons of

the definitions for library media specialists and other

library staff between the LMC survey and the CCD

state nonfiscal survey. 

The public school LMC survey did not present

definitions of personnel. These definitions must be

construed from the definition of a library (see Section

2.0A) and the three staff categories requested by the

questions.

Table 4-2 shows various ways the CCD state nonfiscal

survey library staff definitions could be interpreted

based on assumptions made by the respondent: 

C Assumption one focused on

whether a position was professional

or nonprofessional.

C Assumption two focused on

materials worked with. The CCD

state nonfiscal survey definitions

concentrated on identifying the

duties and materials used by the

staff. 

C Assumption three considered all

staff to be professional as stated in

the CCD state nonfiscal survey

definitions. Classification was

determined by type of materials

worked with. 

Sometimes the respondent skips the definitions or

forgets them while completing the form. The form
81

asked for “Librarians/Media Specialists” and The LMC survey estimates are expected to be higher

“Library/Media Support Staff.” The wording of these primarily due to the different units of collection and

two categories, considered on their own, suggested inclusion of computer resource staff.

placing other professionals and nonprofessionals

working in the library in the support staff category. 

There may be differences in estimates due to the units

of collection. The CCD state nonfiscal survey collected

counts in full-time equivalents. The LMC survey

collected librarian counts which were weighted to

produce the estimates.

There may be differences in estimates due to the

resources mentioned in the definitions. The CCD state

nonfiscal survey does not mention computer resource

staff in the library staff definitions. 

There will be differences in estimates due to the levels

of reporting. The CCD state nonfiscal survey

respondents were the state coordinators, while the LMC

survey respondents were the school staff. Thus, the

CCD state nonfiscal survey may include district and

regional level media services, while the LMC survey

did not. 

There may be differences in estimates due to

volunteers. The LMC survey separated volunteers,

while the CCD survey did not mention them. 

The different reporting dates should not matter. The

CCD state nonfiscal survey instructed the respondent to

report as of October 1. The LMC survey was for the

school year. The LMC survey did not specify a date for

reporting information. Because schools report positions

rather than current staff, however, there should be

minimal differences due to timing.

Related Report Sections

See Section 4.0B. 

Section 4.0B LMC and CCD State Nonfiscal Survey

(Public): Total Library Staff Estimates 

Comparison

Estimates of total library staff were compared between

the LMC and CCD state nonfiscal surveys.

Hypothesis

Principal Findings: The estimates of total library

staff differed between surveys.

Tables

Table 4-4 shows the results.

Items

See Section 4.0A.

Results in a Nutshell

The LMC survey estimates were higher, probably due

to the different units of collection and the inclusion of

computer resource staff. The magnitude of the

differences, however, suggested additional causes such

as the levels of reporting or an estimation issue for the

LMC survey.

Basic Findings

In all states, the LMC survey estimate was equal to or

higher than the CCD state nonfiscal survey total. The

national ratio was 1.59. The LMC survey estimates,

however, may be too high. The data suggested that, for

thirteen states, more than twice as many library

personnel were computer resource personnel than were

librarians/specialists, library aides and other

professionals. It was unknown how much of the

difference was due to different units of collection.

Differences also could be due to the levels of reporting

or an estimation issue for the LMC survey data.

Other Findings

Estimation

For the individual school records on the LMC survey,

the schools with the highest weights should report the

fewest personnel. (The schools with the highest

weights should represent the smaller schools.) This was

not always the case. 
82

Example: There were 112 public schools in

Massachusetts. The weights ranged from 2.6 to 56.7.

Responses ranged from zero to nine. For the three

highest weights, two respondents with weights of 56.7

and 56.3 reported a count of three for staff. Also

notable, respondents with weights of 36.5, 27.6 and

25.7, reported four, five and three staff members,

respectively.
83

Table 4-1. Key Definition Differences for Library Media Center Staff: 

The LMC Survey Compared to the CCD State Nonfiscal Survey

Type of Library Media Key Definitions Features Type of Library Media Key Definitions Features

Center Staff Center Staff

The Public School LMC The CCD State

Survey Nonfiscal Survey

Library media specialist C state certified Librarians and media C professionals with

C eligible for state focusing on printed

certification upon materials

completion of

probation

specialists specific duties

Other professional staff C nonstate-certified Library and media support C other professionals

library media staff who focus on

specialists audiovisual services

C any professional

working in the media

center

C library aides

C “those involved in

library/medi a

support”

Other paid staff paid: 

C clerical staff

C library aides

C other support staff

Volunteers unpaid services Volunteers not mentioned

Abbreviations:

CCD = Common Core of Data Survey

LEA = Local Education Agency Survey

LMC = Library Media Center Survey
84

Table 4-2. Differing Interpretations of Library Media Center Staff Categories for the CCD State Nonfiscal Survey

Assumption: The key difference in descriptions is professional training: Librarians and media specialists are professionals; library support

staff are nonprofessionals.

Librarians and Media Specialists Library and Media Support Staff

Librarians and media specialists with degrees Librarians and media specialists without degrees

Audiovisual resource staff with degrees Audiovisual resource staff without degrees

Library aides with (any) degree Library aides without degrees

Clerks

Assumption: The key difference in descriptions is the type of materials worked with: Librarians and media specialists are those working with

printed resources; library support staff are those working with audiovisual resources.

Librarians and Media Specialists Library and Media Support Staff

Librarians and media specialists, with or without degrees, primarily working Librarians and media specialists, with or without degrees, primarily working

with printed materials with audiovisual resources

Other professionals primarily working with printed materials Other professionals primarily working with audiovisual resources

Library aides primarily working with printed materials Library aides primarily working with audiovisual resources

Clerks in the printed materials area Clerks in the audiovisual area

Assumption: The staff must be professional for both categories. The break out is determined by the type of materials worked with: Librarians

and media specialists are professionals who work with printed materials; library support staff are professionals who work with audiovisual

resources.

Librarians and Media Specialists Library and Media Support Staff

Librarians and media specialists with degrees primarily working with Librarians and media specialists with degrees primarily working with

printed materials audiovisual resources

Other professionals primarily working with printed materials Other professionals primarily working with audiovisual resources

Library aides with degrees primarily working printed materials Library aides with degrees primarily working with audiovisual resources

Abbreviations:

CCD = Common Core of Data

Notes:

This report assumes that a professional may have an associate, bachelor’s, master’s or doctoral degree. Note, however, that the American Association of

School Librarians and the Association of Educational Communications and Technology consider the master’s degree in library and information science and

related fields to be the entry-level degree for a professional school librarian.

Note that computer resources are not mentioned by the CCD state nonfiscal survey definitions.
85

Table 4-3. Coverage of Library Media Specialists/Librarians’ Income: The Library Media Specialist Survey Compared to the 

National Public Education Financial Survey

Income The NPEFS Survey The LMS Survey

Salaries for Salaries for

Instructional Staff Librarians

Support Services

Library media specialist duties at public schools Yes Yes

Library media specialist duties at district or regional level centers Yes No

Library media specialists teaching summer school Yes Yes

Library media specialists teaching during the school year No Yes

Library media specialists earning supplemental income from other duties or jobs within the school Yes Yes

Improvement of instruction and other support services (not related to the library media center) Yes No

Abbreviations:

LMS = Library Media Specialist/Librarian Survey

NPEFS = National Public Education Financial Survey

Note:

The NPEFS survey salaries for Instructional Staff Support Services include improvement of instruction, educational media services and other support services.
86

Table 4-4. Total Library Media Center Staff Estimates for Public Schools:

the Library Media Center Survey Compared to 

the Common Core of Data State Nonfiscal Survey by State, 1993-94

By Alphabetical State Order By Descending LMC/CCD Ratio

LMC Survey CCD Survey LMC/CCD LMC/CCD

(C1) (C2) (C1/C2) (C1/C2)

United States 140,615.7 88,416 1.59 United States 1.59

Alabama 1,902.6 1,365 1.39 South Dakota* 5.28

Alaska 690.5 332 2.08 Oklahoma* 3.55

Arizona 2,031.5 1,390 1.46 Montana 3.11

Arkansas* 1,545.4 948 1.63 Massachusetts 2.94

California 10,943.6 3,950 2.77 California 2.77

Colorado 2,427.1 1,786 1.36 Idaho 2.72

Connecticut 1,562.4 1,307 1.20 North Dakota 2.71

Delaware 227.6 150 1.52 Rhode Island 2.64

District of Columbia 219.0 177 1.24 Nebraska 2.60

Florida 4,583.5 3,218 1.42 Wyoming 2.20

Georgia 3,530.3 3,201 1.10 Alaska 2.08

Hawaii 344.2 352 0.98 Illinois 2.05

Idaho 939.0 345 2.72 Kansas 2.03

Illinois 7,765.8 3,782 2.05 Minnesota 1.95

Indiana 3,448.1 2,470 1.40 Maine 1.95

Iowa 3,200.8 2,006 1.60 Wisconsin 1.94

Kansas 2,932.5 1,442 2.03 West Virginia 1.90

Kentucky 2,345.8 1,659 1.41 Michigan 1.84

Louisiana 1,931.7 1,323 1.46 Washington 1.71

Maine 1,023.6 526 1.95 New Jersey 1.69

Maryland 2,070.6 1,552 1.33 Utah 1.65

Massachusetts 2,522.6 858 2.94 Arkansas* 1.63

Michigan 5,804.7 3,158 1.84 Iowa 1.60

Minnesota 3,446.0 1,763 1.95 Vermont 1.57

Mississippi 1,524.0 1,054 1.45 New York 1.56

Missouri 3,400.0 2,573 1.32 Ohio 1.56

Montana 1,529.4 491 3.11 Delaware 1.52

Nebraska 2,140.7 823 2.60 New Mexico 1.49

Nevada 662.9 476 1.39 Oregon 1.47

New Hampshire 733.6 553 1.33 Arizona 1.46

New Jersey 4,157.3 2,457 1.69 Louisiana 1.46

New Mexico 827.4 554 1.49 Mississippi 1.45

New York 7,295.6 4,672 1.56 Florida 1.42

North Carolina 3,880.5 3,033 1.28 Kentucky 1.41

North Dakota 906.4 335 2.71 Indiana 1.40

Ohio 6,033.5 3,878 1.56 Alabama 1.39

Oklahoma* 3,052.6 860 3.55 Nevada 1.39

Oregon 2,208.5 1,501 1.47 Colorado 1.36

Pennsylvania 5,409.8 4,107 1.32 Maryland 1.33

Rhode Island 480.6 182 2.64 New Hampshire 1.33

South Carolina 2,088.7 1,805 1.16 Missouri 1.32

South Dakota* 1,097.3 208 5.28 Pennsylvania 1.32

Tennessee 2,178.7 2,051 1.06 North Carolina 1.28

Texas 9,988.1 9,100 1.10 District of Columbia 1.24

Utah 1,051.2 637 1.65 Connecticut 1.20

Vermont 585.6 372 1.57 South Carolina 1.16

Virginia 3,130.8 2,895 1.08 Georgia 1.10

Washington 3,404.1 1,990 1.71 Texas 1.10

West Virginia 696.6 366 1.90 Virginia 1.08

Wisconsin 4,013.9 2,066 1.94 Tennessee 1.06

Wyoming 698.8 317 2.20 Hawaii 0.98

Abbreviations: CCD = Common Core of Data LMC = Library Media Center

Notes:

The CCD state nonfiscal survey collects data in full-time equivalents while the LMC survey collects counts. For this table, library media staff definitions include

library media specialists/ librarians, other professionals working in the library, library aides, audiovisual resource staff, and: For the LMC survey, include computer

resource staff and clerks. For the CCD survey, include district and regional level media services.

For states marked with an asterisk, the state coordinators indicated that the request for library/ media support staff counts on the CCD state nonfiscal survey was

not applicable.

Source: 

1993-94 Library Media Center Survey data file (U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics)

1993-94 Common Core of Data State Nonfiscal Survey data file (U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics)
87

Library Media Center Surveys Compared to Common

Core of Data State Nonfiscal Survey - continued were not state certified. Whether the CCD state

Section 4.1A LMC and CCD State Nonfiscal Survey

(Public): Other Professional Staff Definitions

Definitions and Items

LMC

LMC Item 1b = “How many professional

staff members working in

this school’s library media

center are NOT certified as

library media specialists?”

CCD

“Library and Media Support Staff - 

Library support staff are those staff members who

render other professional library services,

including selecting, preparing, caring for and

making available to members of the instructional

staff the equipment, films, filmstrips,

transparencies, tapes, television programs and

similar materials, whether maintained separately or

as part of an instructional materials center.

C INCLUDE activities in the audiovisual center,

television studio, and related work-study areas

and services provided by audiovisual

personnel.

C INCLUDE library aides and those involved in

library/media support.”

CCD Item C05 (F05) = “Library/Media Support

Staff”

Discussion

Other staff at the library may consist of professionals,

library aides, television studio staff, computer learning

laboratory staff and volunteers. Estimates for other

professional staff at the library from the LMC survey

were compared to the universe counts of support staff

from the CCD state nonfiscal survey.

Other Professional Staff:

The issue was whether librarians were included in the

“other professionals” category. The LMC survey “other

professional” staff category included librarians who

nonfiscal survey included librarians in the library and

media support staff category was subject to

interpretation.

Under the description for library and media support

staff in the CCD state nonfiscal survey, the word

“professional” appeared once. It indicated the intent

was to collect only professionals. For purposes of

comparison, the CCD state nonfiscal survey support

staff was assumed to be professional. The two

instructions following this paragraph, however, seem to

contradict this intent:

• The first instructed the respondent to include

“activities” in various areas and “audiovisual

personnel,” rather than specific staff and

professionals.

• In the second, the description requested the

respondent “INCLUDE library aides and those

involved in Library/Media support.”

Again, there was no reference to professional training.

This instruction also suggested the inclusion of clerks

in the library and media support staff count.

Library Aides and Clerks:

Library aides received different treatment in the two

surveys. The LMC survey clearly considered library

aides and clerks to be nonprofessional staff. This was

indicated by a request for state-certified library media

specialists, followed by a request for other

professionals, and a request for other paid staff which

specified the inclusion of paid clerical staff and library

aides. The CCD state nonfiscal survey data may or may

not have included library aides and clerks as

professional support staff as discussed in Section 4.0A.

Television Studio Staff:

The LMC survey asked if the school had in-house

television production facilities and if the television

production was under the supervision of the library

media staff. The CCD survey staff definitions assumed

the television studio was part of the library. Television

studios, whether maintained separately or as part of the

instructional materials center, were included as other

professional library services for CCD survey staff

counts. A school could report the television studio was

not under the supervision of the library media staff on
88

the LMC survey, while the state may report the

television studio staff as library media support staff on Survey (Public): Other Professional Staff

the CCD survey.

In many schools, television studios are no longer Comparison

considered a support activity. Television production is

a class for credit. Television studios are often located

in the vocational-technical area. Thus, schools may or

may not consider television staff to be library staff. 

On the LMC survey, the respondent reported library

staff counts long before reaching the section asking if

the television studio was under the supervision of the

library media staff. Their thoughts at the time of

reporting staff counts may or may not have included the

television studio staff. The definition of a library on the

LMC survey referenced audiovisual resources but did

not specify television studios.

Computer Learning Laboratory Staff:

Reporting could vary for computer learning laboratory

staff. The definition on the LMC survey included

computer resources, thus, computer laboratory

personnel were intended to be included with the library.

The CCD survey did not reference computer resources.

It was up to the respondent to decide whether computer

laboratory staff should be reported.

Volunteers:

The public school LMC survey requested “other PAID

employees [who] work in this school’s library media

center,” specified whom to include, and then instructed

“Do not include unpaid volunteers.” The CCD survey

did not mention volunteers. Because these were counts,

not salaries, they may or may not be reported with the

CCD survey’s library/media support staff.

Related Report Sections

See Section 4.1B.

Section 4.1B LMC and CCD State Nonfiscal

Estimates

A comparison of the LMC survey other professional

staff in the library to the CCD state nonfiscal survey

library and media support staff was done.

Hypothesis

Differences in estimates of other professional staff are

expected due to the differing treatments of librarians,

aides, clerks, television studio staff and computer

resource staff. Most notably, aides and clerks are

specifically excluded from the LMC survey other

professional staff but may be included for the CCD

state nonfiscal survey support staff. This would cause

the LMC survey estimates to be less than the CCD state

nonfiscal survey counts. The collection of data in fulltime equivalents on the CCD may have an offsetting

affect.

Principal Finding: The comparison suggested the

surveys were collecting these staff counts in the

intended categories.

Tables

See Table 4-5. 

Items

See Section 4.0A. 

Results in a Nutshell

The LMC survey estimates were generally lower than

the CCD state nonfiscal survey counts, as expected.

Basic Findings

For most states, the weighted LMC survey total was

notably less than the CCD state nonfiscal survey count.

The data indicated the CCD survey could include

nonprofessionals and television studio staff in its

support staff counts. The ratios ranged from 0.10 to

3.04, except for West Virginia. The national average

was 0.52. Removing West Virginia’s ratio of 11.32

from the national totals does not change the national

ratio.
89

Other Findings survey count and the CCD state nonfiscal survey count

Estimation

West Virginia was a notable outlier on Table 4-6. The

ratio of the LMC survey estimate to the CCD state 

nonfiscal survey count was 11.32. Both the LMC

were six. The CCD estimate was probably an error.
90

Table 4-5 Other Professional Staff Estimates for Public Schools:

The Library Media Center Survey Compared to the Common Core of Data State Nonfiscal Survey by

State, 1993-94

By Alphabetical State Order By Descending LMC/CCD Ratio

LMC Survey CCD Survey LMC/CCD LMC/CCD

(C1) (C2) (C1/C2) (C1/C2)

United States 19,816.4 37,915 0.52 United States 0.52

Alabama 120.7 171 0.71 Arkansas NA

Alaska 179.6 176 1.02 South Dakota NA

Arizona 383.7 617 0.62 Oklahoma NA

Arkansas 154.9 NA NA West Virginia 11.32

California 4,321.0 3,022 1.43 District of Columbia 3.04

Colorado 697.9 1,082 0.64 Louisiana 2.49

Connecticut 65.1 653 0.10 Idaho 1.61

Delaware 24.2 34 0.71 California 1.43

District of Columbia 12.2 4 3.04 Montana 1.35

Florida 326.3 705 0.46 Massachusetts 1.10

Georgia 391.1 1,148 0.34 Alaska 1.02

Hawaii 27.5 66 0.42 North Dakota 0.90

Idaho 285.2 177 1.61 Nebraska 0.88

Illinois 1,444.5 1,809 0.80 Michigan 0.80

Indiana 526.6 1,423 0.37 Illinois 0.80

Iowa 534.5 1,354 0.39 Kansas 0.79

Kansas 369.3 469 0.79 Maine 0.73

Kentucky 206.6 472 0.44 Delaware 0.71

Louisiana 264.2 106 2.49 Alabama 0.71

Maine 209.4 285 0.73 Washington 0.69

Maryland 102.8 474 0.22 Nevada 0.66

Massachusetts 320.4 291 1.10 New Mexico 0.65

Michigan 1,326.2 1,658 0.80 Utah 0.65

Minnesota 336.9 779 0.43 Colorado 0.64

Mississippi 241.6 414 0.58 Arizona 0.62

Missouri 505.8 1,312 0.39 Wyoming 0.60

Montana 205.1 152 1.35 Mississippi 0.58

Nebraska 232.3 265 0.88 Oregon 0.58

Nevada 156.5 237 0.66 Ohio 0.57

New Hampshire 113.9 299 0.38 Vermont 0.56

New Jersey 196.8 657 0.30 Wisconsin 0.49

New Mexico 203.6 311 0.65 Florida 0.46

New York 270.1 1,689 0.16 North Carolina 0.45

North Carolina 395.2 882 0.45 Kentucky 0.44

North Dakota 140.6 156 0.90 Minnesota 0.43

Ohio 1,197.3 2,102 0.57 Hawaii 0.42

Oklahoma 635.7 NA NA Iowa 0.39

Oregon 487.4 836 0.58 Missouri 0.39

Pennsylvania 334.0 1,937 0.17 New Hampshire 0.38

Rhode Island 30.2 100 0.30 Indiana 0.37

South Carolina 122.6 720 0.17 Georgia 0.34

South Dakota 214.4 NA NA Rhode Island 0.30

Tennessee 111.9 771 0.15 New Jersey 0.30

Texas 830.1 4,957 0.17 Maryland 0.22

Utah 239.4 370 0.65 Virginia 0.20

Vermont 96.3 173 0.56 Pennsylvania 0.17

Virginia 190.1 950 0.20 South Carolina 0.17

Washington 506.8 735 0.69 Texas 0.17

West Virginia 67.9 6 11.32 New York 0.16

Wisconsin 356.0 727 0.49 Tennessee 0.15

Wyoming 109.0 182 0.60 Connecticut 0.10

Abbreviations:

CCD = Common Core of Data LMC = Library Media Center NA = Not available or not applicable

Notes:

The CCD state nonfiscal survey collects data in full-time equivalents while the LMC survey collects counts. For this table, other professionals

include those working with audiovisual: For the LMC survey, include those working with computer resources. For the CCD survey, include

district and regional level media services.

United States total excludes states where data for the CCD survey are not available.

Source: 

1993-94 Library Media Center Survey data file (U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics)

1993-94 Common Core of Data State Nonfiscal Survey data file (U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics)
91

Library Media Specialist Surveys Compared to

National Public Education Financial Survey educational television, computer-assisted instruction,

Section 4.2A LMS and NPEFS Survey (Public):

Library Staff Salary Definitions equated to those in the LMS survey library definition,

Definitions and Items

LMS

earnings during the summer of 1993 from:

“working as a library media specialist/librarian

in this or any other school” (Item 26a1)

“teaching summer school in this or any other

school” (Item 26a2)

“working at some other job in a school (e.g.,

secretary, day care aide)” (Item 26a3)

and during the current school year from:

“...academic year base salary for working in

this school system” (Item 26b1)

“...additional compensation from this school

system for extracurricular or additional

activities such as coaching, student activity

sponsorship, or evening classes” (Item 26b2)

NPEFS The NPEFS survey salaries are expected to be higher

NPEFS Item 100 for Subfunction 2200: Salaries only the respondent. The NPEFS data include all

for instructional staff support services library staff, staff salaries for improvement of

Discussion

The LMS survey collected salaries for librarians. The

NPEFS survey collected a state total for “Instructional

Staff Support Services” which included

specialists/librarians. The weighted salaries for

librarians could be roughly compared to the state and

national “Instructional Staff Support Services” salaries.

The comparison was tenuous. The NPEFS survey was

a universe collection of salaries for improvement of

instruction and other support services in addition to

educational media services. The LMS survey was a

small sample collecting salaries for only respondents.

The NPEFS survey used the term “educational media

services,” under instructional staff support services, to

include “school libraries, audiovisual services,

supervision of educational media services, and other

educational media services.” This scope of resources

which included: “printed and/or audiovisual and/or

computer resources.” Table 4-3 summarizes the

inclusions and exclusions to be considered when

comparing the LMS survey’s salaries to the NPEFS

survey’s support services salaries.

Note the television studio and computer laboratory will

be reported under instructional staff support services for

the NPEFS survey regardless of who administers the

areas. For the LMS survey, these areas were excluded

if administered by other than the library staff. 

Applicable Report Sections

See Section 4.2B. 

Section 4.2B LMS and NPEFS Surveys (Public):

Library Staff Salary Estimates: 

Comparison

The weighted LMS survey salaries were compared to

the NPEFS survey salaries by state.

Hypothesis

than the LMS survey salaries. The LMS survey covers

instruction and other support services, and district and

regional level salaries for these functions.

Principal Findings: The reporting between the

surveys for librarian salaries was highly consistent

for most states.

Tables

Table 4-6 shows the comparision results.

Items

See Section 4.2A.

Results in a Nutshell
92

 Expectations were met nationally and for most states. states due to the handling of income for teaching during

Basic Findings

Table 4-7 shows that for most states the ratio of LMS

survey salaries to NPEFS survey salaries was low, as

expected. State ratios ranged from 0.02 to 3.90 and the

national ratio was 0.14. 

There were a few states where the ratios were the

opposite of the expected. The LMS survey salaries may

be higher than the NPEFS survey salaries for some 

the school year. On the NPEFS survey, teaching

income was reported under a different function than

librarian income. The NPEFS requested that the

salaries of staff who serve in more than one capacity be

distributed among the appropriate functions. For

example, the salary of a library media specialist who

also taught during the school year would be reported

under the functions “instruction” and “support

services.” For the LMS survey, any teaching income

during the school year was included in and inseparable

from the basic salary.

Other Findings

Arkansas was a notable outlier. A specific cause could

not be identified, although an error in the LMS data was

probable.
93

Table 4-6. Library Staff Salary Estimates for Public Schools:

The Library Media Specialist Survey Compared to the National Public Education Financial Survey by

State, 1993-94

By Alphabetical State Order By Descending LMS/NPEFS Ratio

LMS Survey NPEFS Survey LMS/NPEFS LMS/NPEFS

(C1) (C2) (C1/C2) (C1/C2)

United States 672,185,925 4,652,465,917 0.14 United States 0.14

Alabama 32,211,840 59,391,739 0.54 Georgia NA

Alaska 1,035,538 NA NA Oklahoma NA

Arizona 12,151,262 NA NA Pennsylvania NA

Arkansas 23,492,435 6,030,344 3.90 Massachusetts NA

California 62,877,834 704,092,741 0.09 Illinois NA

Colorado 14,561,469 66,012,050 0.22 New Mexico NA

Connecticut 2,618,790 74,085,806 0.04 Arizona NA

Delaware 817,057 6,346,169 0.13 Alaska NA

District of Columbia 365,804 23,197,266 0.02 Tennessee NA

Florida 21,050,443 366,619,868 0.06 Wisconsin NA

Georgia 19,875,843 NA NA Arkansas 3.90

Hawaii 1,635,021 31,619,750 0.05 North Dakota 1.22

Idaho 6,183,743 14,793,473 0.42 Montana 1.00

Illinois 38,416,072 NA NA South Dakota 0.85

Indiana 14,628,663 87,709,610 0.17 Nebraska 0.58

Iowa 22,075,202 127,397,292 0.17 Alabama 0.54

Kansas 23,813,917 55,304,055 0.43 Wyoming 0.53

Kentucky 11,163,158 69,150,039 0.16 Mississippi 0.48

Louisiana 25,081,813 93,880,018 0.27 Kansas 0.43

Maine 7,633,556 22,138,459 0.34 Idaho 0.42

Maryland 4,714,806 135,619,207 0.03 West Virginia 0.42

Massachusetts 9,693,271 NA NA Maine 0.34

Michigan 13,925,760 269,502,344 0.05 Missouri 0.34

Minnesota 15,079,962 125,203,138 0.12 North Carolina 0.29

Mississippi 17,419,343 36,645,783 0.48 New Hampshire 0.28

Missouri 33,418,410 98,748,684 0.34 Louisiana 0.27

Montana 15,142,750 15,195,175 1.00 Utah 0.23

Nebraska 17,481,512 30,263,604 0.58 Vermont 0.22

Nevada 2,315,692 20,677,712 0.11 Colorado 0.22

New Hampshire 4,514,908 16,072,262 0.28 Texas 0.19

New Jersey 8,976,393 238,271,131 0.04 Iowa 0.17

New Mexico 7,841,709 NA NA Indiana 0.17

New York 15,890,090 304,014,651 0.05 Kentucky 0.16

North Carolina 37,846,364 132,116,027 0.29 South Carolina 0.15

North Dakota 7,345,299 6,014,374 1.22 Delaware 0.13

Ohio 18,061,769 294,187,908 0.06 Minnesota 0.12

Oklahoma 37,944,770 NA NA Virginia 0.12

Oregon 8,330,667 72,764,824 0.11 Oregon 0.11

Pennsylvania 22,086,896 NA NA Nevada 0.11

Rhode Island 2,297,213 24,368,262 0.09 Rhode Island 0.09

South Carolina 15,103,997 97,661,536 0.15 Washington 0.09

South Dakota 10,567,720 12,403,041 0.85 California 0.09

Tennessee 24,829,936 NA NA Ohio 0.06

Texas 91,680,970 493,913,393 0.19 Florida 0.06

Utah 7,910,265 33,864,330 0.23 New York 0.05

Vermont 2,388,308 10,742,576 0.22 Hawaii 0.05

Virginia 22,105,988 190,604,796 0.12 Michigan 0.05

Washington 13,973,582 151,051,990 0.09 New Jersey 0.04

West Virginia 10,979,468 26,268,396 0.42 Connecticut 0.04

Wisconsin 20,263,619 NA NA Maryland 0.03

Wyoming 4,503,945 8,522,094 0.53 District of Columbia 0.02

Abbreviations:

LMS = Library Media Specialist/Librarian NA = Not available NPEFS = National Public Education Financial Survey

Notes:

For this table, salaries cover: For the LMS survey, only the respondent. For the NPEFS survey, all library staff, staff salaries for improvement

of instruction and other support services, and district and regional level salaries for these functions.

United States totals exclude states where data for the NPEFS survey are not available.

Source: 

1993-94 Library Media Specialist/Librarian Survey data file (U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics)

1993-94 National Public Education Financial Survey data file (U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics)
94

CHAPTER 5. SUMMARY COMPARISONS

Section 5.0 Drawing Conclusions from the LMS

Surveys Librarian Data

Comparison

In this report, the LMS survey was compared to the

LMC, SASS and CCD state nonfiscal surveys for:

counts of state-certified specialists (LMC),

professionals (LMC) and specialists/librarians

(CCD),

the classification of the librarian’s main

assignment (SASS), and

the librarian’s role in decision making

(SASS).

This section pulled the results from these data

comparisons together and drew general conclusions

about the usefulness of the LMS survey data.

Hypothesis

The LMS survey covered a sample of respondents only.

The data should be useful for determining the role of

librarians only, not all library staff. 

Principal Findings: The LMS survey was useful for

drawing conclusions about the role of librarians in

schools. It was not useful for drawing inferences

about all library staff or how one state’s librarians

compared to another state’s.

Results in a Nutshell

The LMS survey data were useful for drawing

conclusions about the role of librarians in schools. The

data were not useful for drawing conclusions about all

library staff (specialists/librarians, other professionals,

library aides, clerks) or how one state’s librarians

compared to another state’s.

Basic Findings

To place the surveys in perspective, it is useful to note

that the librarians reporting on the LMS survey

represent approximately 3.9 percent of the total

universe of librarians. Appendix F gives a sense of the

magnitude of the counts from the LMS survey

compared to the LMC, SASS and CCD state nonfiscal

surveys counts.

Intersurvey Agreement

There was high agreement between the LMS and LMC

surveys (Chapter 3, Sections 3.0B and 3.0C) and

between the LMS and CCD state nonfiscal surveys

(Section 3.6B). Between the LMS and SASS surveys,

approximately 69 percent of the public and BIA

schools’ classifications of main assignment agreed

(Section 3.4B). For librarian involvement in decision

making, over half of the responses clearly agreed

(Section 3.5B). Thus, the LMS survey information

concerning the librarian’s role in the school was reliable

and could be used to draw conclusions for all librarians.

Intersurvey Disagreement 

The states were ranked by the key variables, library

media centers and specialists/librarians, across surveys

in Section 5.1. The LMS survey state rankings were

found to have no correlation to the other surveys’

(LMC, SASS, CCD and TDS) rankings. This was

possibly due to the small sample size. The LMS survey

data were unlikely to yield useful conclusions for

comparisons between states.

Section 5.1 States Ranked by Key Variables for

Public Schools Across Surveys

Comparison

The states were ranked by two key variables, library

counts and library media specialist/librarian counts, for

public schools across surveys. The states were ranked

by the LMC survey and the SASS survey library

estimates. The states also were ranked by library

media specialist/librarian estimates for the LMC survey,

the SASS survey, the CCD state nonfiscal survey, the

SASS TDS survey and the LMS survey.

Hypothesis

States should carry the same rank for the two variables

across surveys.

Principal Findings: A comparison of state rankings

for two key variables found the level of response

(librarian, school, local education agency or state)

made a difference.
95

Tables

See Table 5-1.

Results in a Nutshell Illinois and Ohio. Also, the rankings for the two

The level of response (librarian, school, local education

agency or state) was the overriding factor for the

consistency of data collection. The LMS survey did not

show high agreement with the other surveys. The LMC

survey and the SASS survey state rankings showed high

agreement with each other for both key variables. The

CCD state nonfiscal survey and the TDS survey showed

high agreement with each other. 

Basic Findings

The LMS survey was conducted at the librarian level.

The LMC survey and the SASS survey data were

collected at the school level. The CCD survey and the

TDS survey were conducted at the state and local

education agency level, respectively. These

observations indicated the level of data collection

(librarian, school, local education agency or state) was

related to the consistency of reported data.

The LMS survey state rankings were not generally

consistent with the other surveys. No discernable

pattern was found. An LMS survey state rank may have

agreed with the other survey state rankings, such as for

Texas. Or, a state rank may have highly disagreed with

all of the other survey state rankings, such as for New

York. Or, a state rank may have agreed with the LMC

and SASS surveys rankings, but disagreed with the

CCD and TDS surveys, such as for Virginia. Or, a state

rank may have agreed with the CCD and TDS surveys

rankings, but disagreed with the LMC and SASS

surveys, such as for Ohio.

The LMC and SASS surveys were highly consistent

with each other for estimates of libraries and library

media specialists. For example, the top five states for

estimates of centers were California, Texas, New York,

surveys for centers and specialists were similar. That

is, a state held a similar ranking for libraries for the

LMC survey, libraries for the SASS survey, specialists

for the LMC survey, and specialists for the SASS

survey. California, for example, ranked first for centers

on both the LMC and SASS surveys, first for specialists

on the LMC survey, and second for specialists on the

SASS survey. Louisiana, Hawaii and Rhode Island

carried the same rank across all four of these measures.

The CCD and TDS surveys showed high consistency

with each other for counts of specialists. They showed,

however, high variability compared with the LMC and

SASS surveys. For example, Ohio ranked fourth or

fifth for the LMC and SASS surveys, but tenth for the

CCD survey and eleventh for the TDS survey. Florida

ranked seventh or eighth for the LMC and SASS

surveys, but third for both the CCD and TDS surveys.

Numerous other states showed a similar reporting

pattern: Alabama, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois,

Indiana, Iowa, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri,

North Carolina, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South

Carolina, Tennessee and Virginia.

Note that the states with the smallest estimates for

number of libraries and specialists/librarians were the

most consistently ranked across all surveys.

Other Findings

Estimation

California was notable: The CCD and TDS surveys

placed the state at twenty-fifth and tenth, respectively,

while the LMC and SASS surveys placed it at first or

second. This analysis readily points out the error or

omission in California’s reporting (see Sections 3.2B

and 3.6B). 
96

Table 5-1. States Ranked Across Surveys by Key Variables for Public Schools: The Library Media Center Survey, the

Library Media Specialist Survey, the Common Core of Data State Nonfiscal Survey, the Schools and Staffing Survey,

and the Schools and Staffing Survey Teacher Demand Survey, 1993-94

Library Estimates Specialist/Librarian Estimates

State LMC SASS LMC SASS CCD TDS LMS

California 1 1 1 2 25 10 1

Texas 2 2 2 1 1 1 2

New York 3 3 4 3 2 2 27

Illinois 4 4 3 5 7 7 3

Ohio 5 5 5 4 10 11 11

Michigan 6 7 7 8 11 15 20

Pennyslvania 7 6 6 6 4 4 15

Florida 8 8 8 7 3 3 16

Missouri 9 10 9 11 14 16 5

New Jersey 10 9 11 9 9 8 35

Wisconsin 11 11 13 12 12 14 14

North Carolina 12 12 10 10 5 5 6

Indiana 13 13 15 14 21 19 22

Washington 14 15 19 16 15 13 26

Georgia 15 14 12 13 6 6 19

Oklahoma 16 16 14 17 26 23 4

Virginia 17 17 16 15 8 9 18

Tennessee 18 20 22 18 13 12 10

Massachusetts 19 19 24 24 33 28 32

Iowa 20 18 17 21 31 29 9

Kansas 21 22 18 20 23 24 13

Minnesota 22 21 20 19 22 27 25

Louisiana 23 23 23 23 16 20 8

Kentucky 24 25 21 22 18 18 33

Colorado 25 24 25 27 28 32 24

Nebraska 26 26 32 31 34 33 17

Alabama 27 27 26 26 17 17 7

Maryland 28 28 27 25 20 22 43

Oregon 29 29 28 32 29 34 34

South Carolina 30 31 29 28 19 21 29

Arkansas 31 30 30 29 24 26 12

Arizona 32 32 31 30 27 25 30

Connecticut 33 33 36 34 30 30 45

Montana 34 35 33 35 36 36 23

Mississippi 35 34 34 33 32 31 21

West Virginia 36 36 38 36 35 35 31

South Dakota 37 39 35 37 43 46 28

Maine 38 37 41 42 41 38 39

New Mexico 39 40 42 39 40 41 38

Utah 40 38 37 38 38 37 37

Idaho 41 41 39 41 47 47 40

North Dakota 42 42 40 40 45 42 36

Alaska 43 43 44 45 48 48 49

New Hampshire 44 44 45 43 39 43 42

Wyoming 45 45 46 47 49 49 41

Nevada 46 46 43 44 42 44 46

Vermont 47 47 47 46 44 40 44

Rhode Island 48 48 48 48 51 45 47

Hawaii 49 49 49 49 37 39 48

Delaware 50 50 51 50 50 50 50

District of Columbia 51 51 50 51 46 51 51

Abbreviations: CCD = Common Core of Data LMC = Library Media Centers LMS = Library Media Specialist/Librarian

SASS = Schools and Staffing Survey TDS = Teacher Demand Survey

Notes:

For this table, the LMC survey estimates include other professionals working in the library media center.

The LMS survey covers the respondent only. The CCD collects in full-time equivalents.

Source:

1993-94 Common Core of Data State Nonfiscal data file (U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics)

1993-94 Library Media Center Survey data file (U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics)

1993-94 Library Media Specialist/Librarian Survey data file (U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics)

1993-94 Schools and Staffing Survey data file (U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics)
97

Appendix A. Discussion of Principal Findings with

Qualifications the SASS survey national estimates. While the

There were three primary objectives for this evaluation

of the school library statistical programs. These are

listed below, along with a summary of the data analysis

and statistical findings for each. 

Objective: To determine the accuracy of the data are staffed.

representing the numbers of schools with library

media centers. 3. Reports of state certification for specialists and

1. The linked schools counts of libraries from the

32

LMC and the SASS surveys were compared by

scope for the public, private and BIA schools,

33

separately. For linked schools, there was a high

rate of intersurvey agreement for all three types of

schools (public, private and BIA). Direct

disagreement between the linked schools was

nonexistent for the public and BIA schools. There

was little disagreement for the private schools.

The linked data suggested the presence or absence

of a definition for the library made little difference.

2. The state estimates of libraries from the LMC and

the SASS surveys were compared for the public

and BIA schools, separately. The state estimates

were in high agreement for schools reporting a

library. For schools reporting no library, the LMC

survey national estimates were notably lower than

linked data suggested the presence or absence of a

definition for the library makes little difference, the

weighted data indicated some confusion.

Objective: To determine the accuracy of the data

concerning the levels at which library media centers

professional training for library staff members

were compared between in-scope linked schools

for the LMC and the LMS surveys for the public,

private and BIA schools, separately. The results

were inconclusive . The rates of agreement and

34

disagreement were similar for state certification

and professional training. 

These items were presented in different formats.

Differences in response were due more to the way

the respondents go about completing the form,

rather than a definitional or layout problem.

4. The classification of the specialist/librarian’s main

assignment was compared between the LMS and

the SASS surveys for public, private and BIA

schools, separately. Scope was taken into account.

There was fairly consistent agreement in reporting

for full-time librarians between surveys for public

and BIA schools. There was a notable number of

part-time specialists/librarians on the LMS survey

reported as full time on the SASS survey for all

types of schools.

5. Counts and estimates of specialists/librarians were

compared between the LMC and the SASS surveys

by type of school. Scope was taken into account

for the counts. The LMC survey counts and

estimates were higher than the SASS survey counts

and estimates. The lack of instructions on the

LMC survey for reporting counts of staff with more

than one function or shared between schools may

be a reason. The comparison for library aides

generated mixed results.

Linked schools were those matching by

32

identification number between surveys. The schools were on

both surveys’ mailing lists, that is, sample.

For the LMC and LMS surveys, there were in33

scopes, nonrespondents and out-of-scopes. For the LMC

survey, in-scopes were schools with libraries and reporting

at least certain items. For the LMS survey, in-scopes were

schools with a library media specialist/librarian and

reporting at least certain items. Out-of-scopes were cases

where there was no school or no library, or for the LMS

survey, no librarian. If the school did not meet the criteria

for in-scope or out-of-scope, then it was classified as a

nonrespondent. Nonrespondents were nonrespondents and

those that returned a combination of reported data and

missing responses. That is, the school had a library or

librarian, but the remainder of the survey responses were

insufficient for inclusion in the tabulated data. 

Out-of-scope cases had weights greater than zero if the

school reported no library. Otherwise, out-of-scope cases That is, no definite conclusions can be made

had weights equal to zero. Nonrespondent cases had no about the data. The levels of agreement and disagreement

weights, that is, zero for the weight. See Appendices B and were not high enough to declare clear results without input

C. from data users to establish criteria.

34
98

6. Estimates for the LMC survey and the CCD state 10. Estimates for full-time and part-time

nonfiscal survey were compared for the total specialists/librarians were compared between the

library staff for public schools. The LMC survey LMS and SASS surveys for public and BIA

estimates were higher due to the differing units of schools, separately. The SASS survey estimates

collection and possibly the inclusion of computer were higher primarily because the LMS survey

resource staff and clerks. The magnitude of the covers only the respondent. The reporting was

differences, however, suggested either the data consistent across types of surveys.

were affected by the differences in units of

reporting, or there may be an estimation issue for 11. Salary estimates were compared between the LMS

the LMC survey. and the NPEFS surveys for public schools. It was

7. Estimates of library media specialists were be higher because the LMS survey covers only the

compared between the LMC survey and the CCD respondent and the NPEFS data include salaries for

state nonfiscal survey for public schools. The all educational media services, improvement of

LMC survey estimates were higher. The condition instruction, and other support services.

may be due to the following: Expectations were met nationally and for most

C the different units of collection

C various possible interpretations of the between the LMC survey and the SASS TDS

CCD state nonfiscal survey definitions survey for public schools. This may be due to the

C misreporting on the LMC survey indicate many professionals who were not

C the LMC survey estimation The estimation of the LMC survey also may be a

8. Estimates of other professional staff were

compared between the LMC survey and the CCD

state nonfiscal survey for public schools. The revealing the role that library media centers and

surveys have differing treatments of librarians,

aides, clerks, television studios and computer

resources. The fact that aides and clerks were

specifically excluded from the LMC survey “other

professional staff category,” but included in the

CCD state nonfiscal survey “support staff

category,” was considered to be the main factor.

This factor caused the LMC survey estimates to be

generally lower than the CCD state nonfiscal

survey estimates.

9. Estimates of library media specialists/librarians

were compared between the LMS survey and the

CCD state nonfiscal survey for public schools. It

was hypothesized that the nonfiscal CCD surveys

counts would be higher than the LMS survey

estimates because the LMS survey covers only the

respondent. Expectations were met at the national

level and for the majority of states. Different units

of collection, ambiguous CCD state nonfiscal

survey definitions, and the small size of LMS

survey sample were potential causes of the cases

where expectations were not met.

hypothesized that the NPEFS survey salaries would

states.

12. Estimates of specialists/librarians were compared

different units of collection. Also, the data may

specialists/librarians were working in the library.

factor.

Objective: To determine the accuracy of the data

their staff play in schools.

13. Data from the LMS survey and the SASS survey

were compared for public schools. Scope was

taken into account. For schools reporting a

decision-making body that brings administrators

and teachers together, more than half of the

specialists/librarians were included in decision

making according to the LMS survey. It is

interesting to note that the percentage of librarians

who feel included in decision making was higher

for all schools (with or without a decision-making

team) than for those with a decision-making team.

14. The LMS survey was compared to the LMC, SASS

and CCD surveys for counts of state-certified

specialists (LMC), professionals (LMC) and

specialists/librarians (CCD); the classification of

the librarians main assignment (SASS); and the

librarians role in decision making (SASS). The

results from these comparisons were analyzed and

general conclusions were drawn.
99

The LMS survey was useful for drawing The LMS survey did not show high agreement with

conclusions about the role of librarians in schools. the other surveys. The LMC survey and the SASS

It was not useful for drawing inferences about all survey state rankings showed high agreement with

library staff or how one state’s librarians compare each other for both key variables. The CCD

to another state’s. survey and the TDS survey showed high agreement

15. The states were ranked by two key variables, at the respondent level. The LMC survey and the

library media center counts and library media SASS survey data were collected at the school

specialist/librarian counts, for public schools level. The CCD survey and the TDS survey were

across surveys. The states were ranked by the conducted at the state and local education agency

LMC survey and the SASS survey library level, respectively. These observations indicated

estimates. The states also were ranked by the level of data collection (librarian, school, local

specialists/librarians estimates for the LMC survey, education agency or state) was related to the

the SASS survey, the CCD state nonfiscal survey, consistency of reported data.

the SASS TDS survey and the LMS survey.

with each other. The LMS survey was conducted
100

Appendix B. Description of Methodology

Project Definition

The NCES staff was consulted and the report, “School

Library Media Centers in the United States, 1990–91,”

published by the NCES, was reviewed to determine the

objectives of the evaluation. 

Secondary surveys were selected for inclusion in the

project for comparative purposes. 

A general data comparison/analysis plan noting

materials, schedule and output was created. 

 A chart of the surveys and their interrelationships was

created. The chart noted such items as type of entity,

respondent, levels of data summary, and status as a

sample or universe. 

It was determined there were three basic types of

comparisons: definitions, counts for linked schools,

and estimates for states and the nation.

Evaluation of Survey Definitions

A list of comparable data items and levels of data

summary was created. 

The following data elements were examined: libraries;

total library staff; specialists/librarians; other

professionals working in the library; library aides;

salaries for specialists/librarians; and the

specialists/librarians’ roles in decision making. For

specialists/librarians, state certification, professional

training and classification of main assignment were

examined. Full-time and part-time status of the library

staff also was studied. 

Observations about the similarities and differences

between surveys for terminology, definitions,

instructions and item presentations were noted.

Hypotheses were documented. Limitations of the

comparisons were noted. 

Data Comparison

The data files were gathered. The files were imported

from various formats into a database format (Microsoft

Access). Logic for the data comparisons was created.

The data comparisons were performed using queries in

Microsoft Access. Findings from the data comparisons

were documented. Tables were created in spreadsheet

software (Quattro Pro) showing basic findings.

For the LMC, LMS and SASS surveys, individual

school records were available in the data files. The

records were linked between survey files by school

identification numbers. This enabled direct comparison

of reported data at the school level between the LMC

and LMS surveys, between the LMC and SASS

surveys, and between the LMS and SASS surveys. The

comparisons were performed separately for public,

private and BIA schools. Based on the analysis of

definitions, the most similar data items were compared.

Each school’s scope was included in the comparisons.

Data files for the CCD state nonfiscal survey and the

SASS TDS survey contained state tabulations for public

schools only. Data files for the LMC, LMS and SASS

surveys contained individual records for public and

BIA schools. The school records were weighted and

tabulated by state and type of school for the

comparisons. Comparisons were made by linking state

totals between the LMC and CCD surveys; the LMS

and CCD surveys; the LMC and SASS surveys; and the

LMS and SASS surveys.

Evaluation of Findings

The findings were examined from different

perspectives, and text was created to present the

analysis. The relationship of findings to the assessment

of definitions was noted. For the linked schools,

intersurvey item agreement and disagreement were

given special attention.

Sometimes additional queries were run to learn more

about the original data comparisons. 

The report was reviewed to see how findings between

surveys related to findings between other surveys. For

example, the LMC survey/ SASS survey findings for

individual schools were compared to the LMC

survey/SASS survey state-level findings. 

How findings at one level related to findings at another

level was examined. For the state aggregate tables, state

data were ranked from largest to smallest for each

survey in the comparison. A few notable differences

were referenced in this report. From this exercise, it

was decided to create a table showing state rankings for

key variables for each public school survey.

Scope, Estimation and Imputation
101

Survey documentation on scope, estimation and compared, and the scopes were described. The

imputation was reviewed. Sections describing the hypothesis, results, basic findings, intersurvey

effects of scope, imputation, estimation and outliers agreement and intersurvey disagreement were presented

were added. for all comparisons. Scope and imputation analysis

For the linked schools, data comparisons were run to

account for scope. Scope was accounted for in findings A similar format was created for presenting state

and tables. aggregate findings and evaluation. The surveys and

Where linked schools’ data between surveys were results were listed along with the findings, including

contradictory, imputation was examined. Imputation relationships of findings to definitions. A discussion of

was traced to see the effect on the data and to see if the estimation and outliers completed each comparison.

imputation was accomplishing the intended results. 

For state aggregate data, the effect of individual

school’s weights on the data was assessed. State Finalizing the report included:

outliers were examined. 

Format recommendations

A format was created for presenting linked school C evaluating the LMC and LMS surveys for form

findings and evaluation. The relationship of findings to design improvements

definitions was presented. The surveys and items 

followed if applicable.

items compared were described. The hypothesis and

Report Development

C writing up a survey of findings and

C incorporating comments from the sponsor,

mathematical statisticians and survey analysts
102

Appendix C. Sampling for the SASS, LMC and LMS Surveys

I. SASS Survey public school sampling 

A. Universe: CCD survey public schools

B. Strata

1. Type of school (BIA; schools with 19.5 percent or more Native American students; DE, NV and

WV; other)

2. Geographical area

a. State or a specific group of states

b. Local education agency for DE, NV and WV

3. Grade level (elementary, secondary, combined)

C. Sort within each stratum (except BIA schools)

1. State

2. MSA versus Non-MSA

3. Local education agency zip code

4. Local education agency identification number

5. Highest grade

6. School percent minority

7. School enrollment

8. CCD survey school identification number

D. Sample within each stratum (except BIA schools)

By size ( square root of the number of teachers times the school’s basic weight)

Abbreviations:

BIA = Bureau of Indian Affairs

CCD = Common Core of Data

DE = Delaware

LMC = Library Media Center

LMS = Library Media Specialist/Librarian

MSA = Metropolitan Statistical Area

NV = Nevada

SASS = Schools and Staffing Survey

WV = West Virginia

Notes:

All BIA schools were included in the sample.
103

Appendix C. Sampling for the SASS, LMC and LMS Surveys—continued

II. SASS private school sampling

A. Universe: private schools

B. Frame: Area

1. Strata

a. Primary sampling unit2

b. Metro versus nonmetro

c. Enrollment compared to median

C. Frame: School list

1. Strata

a. School affiliation

b. Grade level (elementary, secondary, combined)

c. Region

2. Sort within each stratum

a. State

b. Highest grade 

c. Urbanicity 

d. Zip code

e. School enrollment

f. School identification number

3. Sample within each stratum 

By size (square root of the number of teachers times the school’s basic weight)

Notes:

All schools in the area frame were include in the sample.

Each consists of a single county, city or cluster of geographically contiguous counties or cities defined so each

unit had a minimum population of 20,000. To avoid covering too large an area, some units had less than

20,000 in population.
104

Appendix C. Sampling for the SASS, LMC and LMS Surveys—continued

III. LMC and LMS survey public school sampling 

A. Universe: SASS survey public school sample

B. Strata

1. NonBIA schools

a. State

b. Grade level (elementary, secondary, combined)

2. BIA schools (All are certainty cases.)

C. Sort within each stratum (except BIA schools)

1. MSA versus Non-MSA

2. Local education agency identification number

3. School enrollment

4. CCD survey identification number

D. Sample within each stratum (except BIA schools)

By size (square root of the number of teachers times the school’s basic weight)

IV. LMC and LMS survey private school sampling 

A. Universe: SASS survey private school sample

B. Strata

1 . School affiliation

2. Grade level

3. Urbanicity

C. Sort within each stratum

1. Frame (school affiliation list, primary sampling unit)

2. School enrollment

D. Sample within each stratum

By size (square root of the number of teachers times the school’s basic weight)
105

Appendix D. Scope for the LMC and LMS 

Surveys -- Counts tabulated data. 

Definition of Scope

Tables 1-3, 1-4 and 1-5 show counts and estimates for

in-scope and out-of-scope schools for the surveys

conducted at the school level. The data comparisons in

this report at the individual school level took account of

scope. 

For the LMC survey, in-scopes were schools with

libraries and reporting at least certain items. The items

were:

C at least two of the following were reported -

number of certified library media specialists,

number of professionals working in the library

who were not certified, number of other paid

employees working in the library (clerks, aides,

etc.), whether volunteers worked in the library;

and

C there were values for at least 30 percent of these

items: Items 2, 5, 6, 7, 10a, 11a, 12, 13, 14a, 15,

16a, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21a, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27 or 28.

For the LMS survey, in-scopes were schools with a

library media specialist/librarian and reporting at least

certain items. The items were:

C the year the respondent began working as an

elementary or secondary school librarian, and

C at least one part of the educational background

section, and

C whether or not the respondent was state certified,

and

C there were values for at least 30 percent of these

items: Items 1, 3, 8, 9, 10a, 11, 15a, 16a, 16b, 18a,

19, 20, 23a, 24, 25, 26a, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33,

34 or 36. 

Out-of-scopes were cases where there was no school or

no library, or for the LMS survey, no librarian. 

If the school did not meet the criteria for out-of-scope

or in-scope, then it was a nonrespondent.

Nonrespondents were nonresponses and insufficient

responses: the school had a library (LMC survey) or

librarian (LMS survey) but the remainder of the survey

responses were insufficient for inclusion in the

Out-of-scope cases had weights greater than zero if the

school reported no library. Otherwise, the weight for an

out-of-scope case was zero. Nonrespondent cases had

no weights, that is, zero for the weight.

Scope and Available Data

For the LMC survey nonrespondents, there were 350

public, 360 private and 15 BIA schools that reported a

library, and 63 public, 101 private and zero BIA

schools with a blank for this item. All other data for the

nonrespondent schools were blanked. These schools

were included in some comparisons.

For the LMC survey out-of-scope schools, a “no,” there

was no library, response remained in the record. All

other data for the record were blanked. There were

184 public, 262 private and 10 BIA school cases where

the case was out-of-scope and the no box was selected.

These cases were used in some data comparisons.

For the LMS survey nonrespondents, all data were

intended to be blanked. There were 11 nonrespondent

public schools where the LMS survey item asking for

the respondent’s main assignment was not blanked.

One of these respondents was an itinerant librarian and

10 were full-time librarians. There were five of these

cases for the private schools and one for the BIA

schools. These cases were used in some comparisons.

For the LMS survey out-of-scope schools, the data

indicating the respondent’s main assignment may be

kept. These data were kept if the respondent indicated

the primary function of a classroom teacher, other

professional staff, volunteer, library aide or support

staff. These 291 public school, 376 private school and

20 BIA school cases were used in some comparisons. 

Also, check boxes indicating the respondent was a

librarian may or may not be blanked depending on other

responses according to the specifications. Five public

school cases, three itinerant librarians and two full

timers, were not blanked. These cases also were used

in some comparisons. All other data were blanked for

the out-of-scope schools.

The 371 public, 465 private and 18 BIA schools that

were out-of-scope on the LMC surveys also were outof-scope on the LMS surveys. There were 480 public,

712 private and 31 BIA schools that were in-scope on
106

the LMC survey, but out-of-scope on the LMS survey. count of nonrespondent schools for the LMC survey on

There were no cases of schools that were out-of-scope each table adds to 206. The count of nonrespondents

on the LMC survey and in-scope on the LMS survey. for the LMS survey on each table adds to 272. Note

These cases were all found to be valid. that each table shows 125 for entities that were

It should be noted that if a school was classified out-ofscope on the SASS survey, it was classified as out-of- Table 1-3 shows counts of schools by scope for the

scope on the LMC and LMS surveys. This would LMS survey. The count for in-scope and

override the procedure for assignment of scope shown nonrespondent public schools adds to 2,217. This is the

in Appendix E. There were 57 cases where a school on total count of schools shown on Tables 3-1 and 3-4.

the LMC survey was originally coded in-scope based on The count of nonrespondent public schools is 272 on

survey responses but then made out-of-scope based on Table 1-3 and the same on Tables 3-1 and 3-4.

the SASS survey.

Counts by Scope Reconciled Between Tables school LMC survey compared to the SASS survey.

The following discussion demonstrates how to reconcile scope for the LMC survey. The total count of public

counts of schools by scope between tables. The schools on Table 2-1 is 5,026, the number of schools on

discussion focuses on public schools but the analysis the public school LMC survey. This can be verified by

may be applied to the tables for private and BIA Table 1-2. The number of nonrespondent schools on

schools. Table 2-1 is 350 for those that reported a library and 63

Table 3-1 and 3-4 show data for the LMC and LMS 2.

surveys. Table 3-1 shows counts of state-certified

library media specialists and Table 3-4 shows counts of Why are there 413 LMC nonrespondent public schools

professional staff for in-scope public schools. The on Table 2-1, but 206 on Tables 3-1 and 3-4? Because

nonrespondents on both surveys.

Table 2-1 shows counts of libraries for the public

Table 1-2 is a listing of counts of schools by 

for nonrespondents. These match the counts in Table 1-

Table 2-1 shows all LMC public schools while Tables

3-1 and 3-4 show only the LMC public schools that

linked to the LMS survey.
107

Appendix E. Scope for the LMC and LMS

Surveys -- Procedure for Assignment

The LMC Survey

A. Assign out-of-scope if:

1. The school no longer exists or the school does not

have a library. 

AND

2. All of the Item 1a detail, Item 1b detail, Item 1c

detail, Item 1d detail and Items 2 through 28 are

blank or not available.

AND

3. All of the Item 1a total, Item 1b total, Item 1c total

and Item 1d total are blank or 0 or not available.

B. Assign in-scope if:

1. The conditions for out-of-scope are not met.

AND

2. Any two of the following four conditions are met:

a. The Item 1a none or total boxes are blank

or not available OR

b. The Item 1b none or total boxes are blank

or not available OR

c. The Item 1c none or total boxes are blank

or not available OR

d. Item 4a has a response of “yes” or “no.”

AND

3. At least 23 of the fields in the following items are

not equal to blank or not available:

Item 2, Item 5, Item 6, Item 7, Item 10a, Item 11a,

Item 12, Item 13, Item 14a, Item 15, Item 16a, Item

17, Item 18, Item 19 , Item 20, Item 21a, Items 23 35

through 28.

C. Assign nonrespondent if:

1. The conditions for out-of-scope are not met.

AND

2. The conditions for in-scope are not met.

The LMS Survey

A. Assign out-of-scope if:

1. The school no longer exists or the school does not

have a library or librarian, AND all of Items 3

through 36 are blank or not available. 

OR

2. Item 2 contains a positive response to Check Box

5, 6, 7, 8 or 9.

B. Assign in-scope if:

1. The conditions for out-of-scope are not met.

AND

2. Item 2 contains a positive response to Check Box

1, 2, 3 or 4.

AND

3. Item 7 is not equal to not available.

AND

4. Any of the following conditions is met:

a. Item 12 is a “yes” or “no” OR

b. Item 13a is a “yes” or “no” OR

c. Item 14a is a “no” OR

d. Item 14b contains a positive response.

AND

5. Item 17a is a “yes” or “no.”

AND

6. At least 11 of the fields in the following items are

not equal to blank or not available:

Item 1, Item 3, Item 8, Item 9 , Item 10a, Item 11, 50

Item 15a, Item 16a , Item 16b, Item 18a, Item 19 ,

50 50

Item 20, Item 23a, Item 24, Item 25, Item 26a, Item

26b except number 4, Item 27 , Items 28 through 50

33, Item 34 , Item 36. 50

C. Assign nonrespondent if:

1. The conditions for out-of-scope are not met.

AND

2. The conditions for in-scope are not met.

Count as one if any of the fields are blank or not 35

available.
108

Appendix F. Counts of Library Media Center Staff Across Surveys

Survey Library Media Library Media Other Library Aides Television Computer Learning

Specialists - Full Time Specialists - Part Professionals and Clerks Studios Laboratory

Time

LMS 1,319 642 101 185 NA NA 2

LMC 3,308 843 1,045 3,276 967 2,253 3 4

SASS 6,824 2,071 NA 6,442 NA NA 5

CCD 50,501 37,915 NA NA

Abbreviations:

CCD = Common Core of Data Survey

LMC = Library Media Center Survey

LMS = Library Media Specialist/Librarian Survey

SASS = Schools and Staffing Survey 

NA = Not available

Notes:

1. The nonfiscal CCD survey is the universe of all public schools. The SASS survey is a sample of the nonfiscal CCD universe. The LMC and LMS

surveys are samples of the SASS survey.

2. Data include itinerant and substitute librarians, all of whom were assumed to be part time.

3. Data include state-certified library media specialists only.

4. Data include librarians who are not state certified.

5. Data are included in the counts of library media specialists.

Sources:

1993–94 Library Media Center Survey data file (U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics)

1993–94 Library Media Specialist/Librarian Survey data file (U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics)

1993–94 Schools and Staffing Survey data file (U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics)

1993–94 Common Core of Data Survey data file (U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics)
109

Appendix G

Survey Forms
149

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Indian School Library Media Center Questionnaire. School Year 1993-94. National Center for Education Statistics.

U.S. Department of Education.

Indian School Library Media Specialist/Librarian Questionnaire. School Year 1993–94. National Center for Education

Statistics. U.S. Department of Education.

Indian School Questionnaire Schools and Staffing Survey. Survey Year 1993–94. National Center for Education

Statistics. U.S. Department of Education.

The National Public Education Financial Survey. School Year 1993–94. National Center for Education Statistics.

U.S. Department of Education.

The Nonfiscal Surveys of the Common Core of Data. School Year 1993–94. National Center for Education Statistics.

U.S. Department of Education.

Private School Library Media Center Questionnaire. School Year 1993–94. National Center for Education Statistics.

U.S. Department of Education.

Private School Library Media Specialist/Librarian Questionnaire. School Year 1993–94. National Center for Education

Statistics. U.S. Department of Education.

Private School Questionnaire Schools and Staffing Survey. School Year 1993–94. National Center for Education

Statistics. U.S. Department of Education.

Public School Library Media Center Questionnaire. School Year 1993–94. National Center for Education Statistics.

U.S. Department of Education.

Public School Library Media Specialist/Librarian Questionnaire. School Year 1993–94. National Center for Education

Statistics. U.S. Department of Education.

Public School Questionnaire Schools and Staffing Survey. School Year 1993–94. National Center for Education

Statistics. U.S. Department of Education.

School Library Media Centers in the United States. School Year 1990–91. National Center for Education Statistics.

U.S. Department of Education.

Teacher Demand and Shortage Questionnaire for Public School Districts (LEAs) Schools and Staffing Survey. School

Year 1993–94. National Center for Education Statistics. U.S. Department of Education.