national library power program findings · wisconsinÕs school of library and information studies...

Executive Summary:

Findings from the Evaluation of the National Library Power ProgramAn initiative of the DeWitt Wallace-ReaderÕs Digest Fund

Conducted by the University of Wisconsinat Madison School of Library and InformationStudies and School of Education

DeWitt Wallace-ReaderÕs Digest Fund

■ This document summarizes the findings

of the final report of the Library Power

Evaluation, prepared by Douglas Zweizig,

Dianne McAfee Hopkins with Norman Webb

and Gary Wehlage. The summary was

prepared by Anne Wheelock, an education

writer, researcher and policy analyst who

served as a case study researcher for the

Library Power Evaluation.

I. Introduction ............................................................................................................................................................. 3

II. About This Study.................................................................................................................................................. 6

III. Library Power: What the Program Accomplished and Lessons Learned ............................. 7Collection Development .................................................................................................................................... 7Facilities Refurbishing ........................................................................................................................................ 8Flexible Scheduling .......................................................................................................................................... 10Collaborative Planning .................................................................................................................................... 11Professional Development ............................................................................................................................... 13

IV. Library PowerÕs Contributions to Teaching and Learning ......................................................... 14Library Power and Curriculum....................................................................................................................... 14Library Power and Instruction ........................................................................................................................ 15Library Power and a Collegial Professional Culture ...................................................................................... 16

V. Lessons for Lasting Change: What Matters Most............................................................................ 17New and Sustained Funding........................................................................................................................... 17Outside Support............................................................................................................................................... 18Leadership......................................................................................................................................................... 19Professional Development and a Positive Professional Culture.................................................................... 19Compatible Policies.......................................................................................................................................... 20

VI. Library Power and Dilemmas of Reform ...................................................................................... 21Competing Demands....................................................................................................................................... 21Varying Capacity for Improving Teaching and Learning .............................................................................. 21Equity ................................................................................................................................................................ 22

VII. Summary............................................................................................................................................................. 23

Findings from the Evaluation of the National Library Power Program ■

Table of Contents

3


I. Introduction

ore than a decade ago, theDeWitt Wallace-ReaderÕs DigestFund began a program to enhanceand elevate the role of libraries inpublic schools. Our work flowedfrom a new, bolder vision of whatthese libraries should look like,what services they should offer andhow they should be used. We sawthem as brightly painted, warmand welcoming places. We antici-pated their shelves brimming withup-to-date books and other relevantprint and electronic learning mate-rials, carefully selected by teams oflibrarians and teachers to closelymatch and supplement topics beingstudied in class. We imagined themoperating on flexible schedules sostudents could visit whenever theyneeded to throughout the schoolday. Once inside, we expected tofind students actively engaged read-ing books, doing research andworking with their classmates Ñsometimes noisily Ñ on interesting,challenging and academicallyrewarding projects. Finally, wehoped that as teachers and librari-ans became skilled at applying newpractices for making best use ofthese enhanced educationalresources, they would be demon-strating the true power of librariesto enrich teaching and learning.

Today, we are happy to report

that vision Ñ what we call LibraryPower Ñ has been realized in hun-dreds of schools across the country,many of them in some the nationÕspoorest districts. No longer remoteand removed from daily instruc-tional activities, libraries in theseschools are now at the center ofteaching and learning, and in someplaces, at the center of schoolwidechange. While weÕre gratified thatour work has produced suchimpressive results, we still have onemore goal to meet Ñ and perhaps amore difficult one. That is to usethe evidence of Library PowerÕs suc-cess to persuade many more peo-ple, especially decision-makers inother schools, local communities,and at the state and federal levels,that libraries are essential toschools. This report is part of thateffort. These findings from a four-year evaluation of the LibraryPower program, conducted byresearchers from the University ofWisconsinÕs School of Library andInformation Studies and School ofEducation, help make the case foradditional and sustained invest-ment in public school libraries.

To put this report in context,some history is helpful. In the late1980s, a public advocacy groupissued a study called ÒNo ReadingAloudÓ that described the poor

condition of library services in NewYork CityÕs public schools. Thestudy showed that large numbers ofschools either had no libraries atall, or if they did, their facilitieswere often in poor shape. To ourdismay, we discovered that the situ-ation in New York was not unique.By and large, educators did notthink public school libraries wereessential to teaching and learning.Some even considered librariansand libraries expendable in leanbudget years. Even in the best oftimes, many public school libraries,especially those in low-income communities, were inadequatelyfunded, facilities were allowed todeteriorate and book collections tofall out of date.

Against this backdrop came aglimmer of hope. In 1988, theAssociation of School Librarians, adivision of the American LibraryAssociation (ALA), issued a publi-cation called Information Power Ñ aset of practices for improving theoperation of school libraries andexpanding their role in teachingand learning. Impressed by thevision put forward in Information

Power, we used it to design LibraryPower. We also invited the ALAand the Public Education Networkto help us implement the program.

M

4

■ DeWitt Wallace-ReaderÕs Digest Fund

Beginning in New York City in1988, and continuing over the next10 years, we and our partners suc-cessfully established Library Powerprograms in 700 schools in 19 com-munities nationwide. In partner-ship with appropriate school dis-trict personnel, each Library Powersite was managed by a local educa-tion fund, a community-basedorganization that works to improvepublic education. Over the term ofthe program, grants for LibraryPower totaled more than $40 mil-lion, making it the largest privateinvestment in school libraries innearly 40 years. In addition, theLibrary Power sites raised $25 mil-lion from public and privatesources in their communities. Thismoney enabled participatingschools to:

¥ Renovate their library space;

¥ Purchase new books and

upgrade print and electronic

collections; and

¥ Provide professional develop-

ment programs for librarians,

teachers and principals to

learn how to work together to

make the best of their new

libraries.

In return for grants from theFund, Library Power schools agreedto hire and pay the salaries of full-time librarians (sometimes called

media specialists), keep the libraryopen and accessible to everyonethroughout the school day, allowteachers and librarians time to par-ticipate in professional develop-ment programs, and increase theirspending for books, software andeducational materials.

Because we wanted to learn whatLibrary Power had achieved, and tobe able to make an effective case forthe important role libraries canplay in supporting teaching andlearning in schools, in 1994 wecommissioned the University ofWisconsin to conduct an evalua-tion of the program. Over fouryears, evaluators surveyed librari-ans, principals and teachers aboutlibrary staffing, materials, resourcesand scheduling. In addition, theevaluation examined how LibraryPower influenced the work librari-ans did with their teacher col-leagues to promote new classroompractices.

This report details the evalua-tionÕs major findings, which aresummarized below:

¥ Improved collections:Book collections in participat-

ing schools improved

considerably and the titles in

the library better reflected

the subjects being studied

in class.

¥ Refurbished facilities:Renovations enabled school

libraries to accommodate

more users and different

kinds of activities, all taking

place simultaneously Ñ such

as individual reading, groups

working together and stu-

dents using computers to

research class projects.

¥ Higher student traffic:Implementation of flexible

scheduling Ñ letting students

visit the library whenever

they need to throughout the

day instead of limiting use to

regularly scheduled periods Ñ

resulted in more frequent

visits to the library.

¥ Greater instructional collab-oration: Librarians and

teachers in participating

schools collaborated on plan-

ning and designing instruc-

tional units, with librarians

sometimes sharing responsi-

bility for teaching.

¥ Expanded professional skills:By taking part in professional

development programs, prin-

cipals, teachers and librarians

discovered new ways to inte-

grate library and other infor-

mation resources into teach-

ing and learning.

These changes and others helpedschools engage students in meaningful and educationally richlearning activities. Instead of beinglimited to classroom lectures andtextbook assignments, studentscould explore topics in more depthby using the full range of libraryresources Ñ books, CD ROMs andthe internet.

We are heartened by these findings, and we are eager to seethem widely shared, consideredand discussed. They should be of

particular importance to allschools, districts and groups com-mitted to improving teaching andlearning. They should be especiallymeaningful to those who are seek-ing ways to help students develophigher order thinking and criticalanalysis skills, and to those whobelieve young people should beactive participants in their ownlearning. The findings should alsobe of interest to those who want tosee schools focused on new oppor-tunities for students to reach their

highest possible level of achieve-ment.

While 10 years may seem like along time to invest in LibraryPower, the return on that invest-ment is just beginning.

M. Christine DeVita

President

DeWitt Wallace-

ReaderÕs Digest Fund

July 1999

5


6


II. About this Study:

he longitudinal evaluation ofLibrary Power began in the Fall of1994 Ñ coinciding with the thirdand final round of grants made aspart of this initiative Ñ and lastedthrough 1998. The evaluation cap-tures the Library Power experienceof schools entering Library Powerunder all three rounds of grant-making and reports data on a totalof 456 schools.

Over the course of their work,evaluators made extensive use ofsurvey and case studies. The evalu-ation draws on data from annualsurveys from librarians in partici-pating schools; from principals inthose schools and from a represen-tative sample of teachers fromacross the initiative; observationaland interview data from longitudi-nal case studies done in 28 schoolbuildings between 1995 and 1997;and data from activity logs thatdocument the collaborative activi-

ties of teachers and librarians. To examine changes resulting

from the implementation ofLibrary Power in participatingschools, researchers:

¥ Conducted time seriesanalyses, examining changefrom 1995-1997, includinganalyses examining changein relation to time spent inthe program.

¥ Compared practice inLibrary Power schools withnational norms using datafrom the National Centerfor Education StatisticsÕSchools and StaffingSurvey.

¥ Triangulated findings bydrawing on multiple datasources on the same phe-nomena.

In all, the Library Power evalua-tion presents data collected fromover 1,000 teachers, 400 principals

and 400 library media specialists.The Library Power evaluation isone of the largest applied researchstudies ever to examine the roleschool library media programs canplay in supporting teaching andlearning activities in schools.

More information about the eval-uation design will be available inthe forthcoming publication,Enriching Teaching and Learning:

Lessons from Library Power, whichwill be published in Fall 1999 byLibraries Unlimited. For orderinformation, write LibrariesUnlimited, PO Box 6633,Engelwood, Colorado, 80155-633;call (800) 237-6124; or e-mail [email protected].

T

his report begins with an exami-nation of Library PowerÕs core com-ponents and the way each one rein-forces the other, contributing tonew professional relationships andpractices in participating schools.It continues with a delineation ofthe ways in which Library Powerteams of librarians, teachers andprincipals in each school adoptedthese core elements and practicesof the program and devised ways toweave them together into a fabricthat was stronger than any of theinitiativeÕs single threads.

Collection Development

From the beginning, LibraryPower sought to address the simplelack of resources in many schoollibraries, especially those in finan-cially strapped districts. Whenschool teams set out to assess thestatus of library collections, theyquickly documented just how out-moded many collections were. Inmany districts, it was not unusualto find overall average copyrightdates of 1968, with a large numberof volumes dating from the 1950s.

Not surprisingly, then, when sur-veyed early on in their LibraryPower experience, many librariansrated collection areas in schools asÒless than adequateÓ in terms ofcurrency and quality.

Two years later, improvements incollections were nearly universal.By 1997, librarians in participatingschools rated many areas Ñ includ-ing fiction, literature, biography, reference sources, science and tech-nology, social sciences and picturebooks Ñ as Òbetter than adequate.ÓThe improvement in collection rat-ings can be seen clearly in Table 1where ratings from a group ofschools in their first year of theirproject (1995) are compared withratings from the same schools inthe third year (1997). Data from anational survey of schools from the1993-94 school year, the Schoolsand Staffing Survey (SASS), areprovided for comparison.

Collections did not improve bymagic. Rather, librarians and teachers, in cooperation with eachschoolÕs Library Power team,worked systematically to fill gaps in

the holdings. By involving teachersmore closely in selecting thesematerials, librarians tailored newpurchases more closely to schoolsÕcurriculum needs. Over two-thirdsof the teachers surveyed across theinitiative said that they wereinvolved in the selection of materi-als. For many schools this was anew practice: 71% of the principalsreported that collaborationbetween teachers and librarians indeveloping the collection did notexist in their schools before LibraryPower. Further, over half of theprincipals attributed the currentcollaboration to the existence ofthe Library Power project. Theresulting, and more extensive, bank

7


III. Library Power:What the Program Accomplished and Lessons Learned

■ Before Library Power, we had to go to three different

public libraries to get the books we needed to teach our

units. (Teacher, Library Power school)

Key Finding: Through Library

Power, book collections in participat-

ing schools improved considerably

and the titles in the library better

reflected the subjects being

studied in class. The resulting, and

more extensive, bank of resources

available for student learning gave

teachers new impetus for using the

library for instructional purposes.

T

of resources available to supportstudent learning gave teachers newimpetus for using the library forinstructional purposes. By 1997,85% of teachers in Library Powerschools said that the collection nowsupported their needs and the

needs of their students better thanbefore the program began; in addi-tion, 60% said they had increasedtheir use of the collection in theirinstruction.

As one teacher reported, Ò[BeforeLibrary Power], you could go to the

library and you might find whatyou needed, but with teachersinvolved in the selection of librarymaterials, now you can go to thelibrary and know youÕll find whatyou need.Ó

Steps to improve collections alsoprovided opportunities for a rangeof individuals within and outsideof schools to participate in libraryreform. For example, local educa-tion funds conducted book drivesin the community and raisedmoney for new purchases.

Separately, teachers and librari-ans worked together on groupingbooks by general topic areas andcopyright dates, and weeding wornand out-of-date volumes from theshelves. Teachers and librariansalso took the additional step of list-ing curriculum topics taught ineach grade and matching new pur-chases to these topics. The bettermatch between library resourcesand curriculum meant that circula-tion among students doubled andeven tripled in some schools.

Facilities Refurbishing

When the program began, manyschool libraries, in places wherethey existed, were in poor physicalcondition. To address this problem, Library Power grants covered the cost of materials for

8


Table 1:Percentage of Librarians RatingCollection Areas as ÒAdequateÓ or ÒExcellentÓ(Matched Librarian Surveys, Round Three only, 1995 & 1997)*

Currentness QuantitySASS LP LP SASS LP LPÕ93-Õ94 Õ95 Õ97 Õ93-Õ94 Õ95 Õ97

% % % % % %

Collection AreaReference 65 63 98 65 58 98Science/Technology 54 48 95 55 36 94Mathematics 40 31 72 38 23 59Geography 52 44 94 53 39 87History 63 55 89 60 49 84Biography 66 67 98 68 61 97Social Sciences 59 64 94 58 61 89Fiction 79 78 95 77 73 92Picture Books 72 82 96 70 71 91Literature 64 64 85 64 47 80Fine Arts 48 47 87 46 37 82Foreign Language 25 20 61 22 5 48Careers 36 36 68 36 29 63Health 47 42 93 44 37 87

Total responding ** 64 63 ** 64 63

*Source: Matched surveys from librarians entering Library Power in the 1994-1995 school year whowere surveyed in Spring 1995 and 1997. **Data from the 1993-94 Schools and Staffing Survey are esti-mates for the 56,273 elementary schools in the United States having school library media centers.

renovations, and school districtssupplied the labor. This combina-tion resulted in dramatic improve-ments in library facilities through-out the country (See Figure 1).

Renovations accommodated multiple uses of library facilities.For example, by simply addingmore seats, a change that occurredin nearly half the participatingschools, work spaces for studentsincreased ten percent across all the

sites. Space for comfortable quietreading increased threefold. Otherchanges included expanding spaceto allow for computer access, storytime and individual and group

activities. Libraries became morecheerful and welcoming places formultiple activities, encouragingboth teachers and students to visitmore often.

9


■ There were rickety tables and no rug. There were some raggedy cushions and almost

no books. When we were little, we had to just stay in our classrooms with baby books

or go across the street to the public library. Now we have new books, new chairs, and

the walls have been painted. The library has a new name, ÒFishing for Knowledge.Ó

Key Finding: Library Power

enabled schools to refurbish their

libraries so that they could accommo-

date more users and different kinds

of activities all at the same time,

such as individual reading, groups

working together and students doing

research on computers. Libraries

became more cheerful and welcom-

ing places, encouraging students and

teachers to visit more often.

Figure 1:Types of Spaces Available in the Library MediaCenter Before and After Library Power

Librarian Survey, 1997: Total Responding: 446

■ % Having Before Library Power ■ % Having After Library Power

14% 20%

5360

2027

2229

6074

3044

5880

6790

5480

5381

4272

5082

2369

The effects on library use thatfollowed from making physicalimprovements illustrate howLibrary Power worked as a collec-tion of practices reinforcing oneanother. As teachers becamedrawn to visiting and using thelibrary with their students, theybegan adopting other LibraryPower practices. The addition ofmore tables and chairs allowed students to use the library in morediverse ways at the same time. In turn, space that could accommo-date a variety of activities made it easier to implement flexiblescheduling, which further expanded studentsÕ access to libraryresources.

Flexible Scheduling

Before Library Power began,most schools limited access to thelibrary to fixed schedules, a practiceoften better suited to the habits of librarians and teachers than to student needs. Typically, students

visited the library as a class at predetermined times Ñ usually oncea week. Students who neededlibrary materials at any other timeoften had to wait until the nextscheduled visit.

Library Power changed all that.A major premise of the program

was that students would benefit byhaving access to resources and facilities that support instruction atthe time most suitable to the lessonor when they spontaneouslyexpressed interest in a topic. Themove to encourage students to visitthe library when they needed mate-rials for classroom learning broughtschool libraries alive. Case studyresearchers in virtually all theschools observed students movingfreely in and out of the library,using reference materials, asking forassistance from the librarian, work-ing in groups, reading on their own

10


■ The old library was not tied to the curriculum in any

way. You went to the library to check out a book.

Period! Now students go when they need to find infor-

mation about what they are studying in class.

(Principal, Library Power school)

Figure 2:Scheduling in Library Media Centers in Library Power Schools*(Matched Librarian Surveys, Round Three Only, 1995 & 1997)

1995 1997Total responding: 63 Total responding: 64

■ Regular Schedule ■ Mix of regular and flexible access ■ Full flexible access *Source: Matched surveys from librarians entering the program in the 1994-1995 school year who were surveyed in Spring 1995 and Spring 1997.

in cozy nooks and bean bag chairs,and checking out books as needed.In surveys, teachers confirmed that students increasingly used thelibrary on their own initiative.

Survey data from schools thatbegan their three-year LibraryPower project in the 1994-1995school year showed dramatic differ-ences in how access to the librarywas provided. At the end of thefirst year of the project, 61% of thelibraries allowed fully flexibleaccess; by the end of three years,92% of the schools had fully flexi-ble schedules (See Figure 2).

Over the course of the program,some form of flexible schedulingbecame a permanent routine inmany schools. Survey data gath-ered from schools one year aftertheir funding ended indicated thatin 97% of the schools, flexible

scheduling was still either fully orpartially part of the school routine.This figure provides a sharp con-trast to SASS data from 1993-1994,which indicate that nationally 44%of school libraries operated onsome form of flexible schedulesand only 17% operated on full flex-ible schedules.

More important, these changesled to studentsÕ using the librarymore frequently. One year afterthe programÕs end, the average stu-dent in a Library Power school visit-ed the library one and a half timesa week. This can be compared tothe expected average of one visitper week in schools with rigidscheduling or the observed averagefor schools nationally in 1993-94 of.83 visits per week. TeachersÕ obser-vations confirm the counts made inLibrary Power libraries. The majori-ty of teachers report that their stu-dents are using the library more(65%), are using it more on theirown initiative (60%), and have amore positive attitude toward usingthe library (72%).

Given varying conditions withinsites, individual schools movedaway from fixed schedules in differ-ent ways. Some librarians retaineda fixed weekly checkout period,while also encouraging students totap into library resources on theirown or in small groups when need-ed. Other librarians continued toinstruct whole classes in libraryskills and also took the opportunityto help students apply those skillswhen they dropped into the libraryfor help on specific assignments.Creative compromise betweeninnovation and tradition was a hall-mark of scheduling practices inmany Library Power schools.

Collaborative Planning

During Library Power, librariansdid not work in isolation to renewcollections, refurbish facilities orestablish more flexible schedulingpractices. Rather, they collaboratedclosely with teachers to plan how toimplement these core practices anddesign new approaches to teachingand learning in their own schools.

11


Key Finding: Implementing a

flexible schedule to allow students

to visit the library whenever they

needed to throughout the day

instead of limiting use to regularly

scheduled periods resulted in more

frequent visits to the library.

■ Prior to Library Power, the librarian was not a partici-

pant in the creation of instructional units. This has

evolved to a nice collaboration between all parties.

(Principal, Library Power school)

In places where teachers werealready involved in shared decision-making, Library Power strength-ened that process by includingschool librarians. Before theirLibrary Power project began, theaverage librarian collaborated with22% of the teachers in the school;in 1997, the average librarian wascollaborating with 55% of theteachers in the building. Teachersconfirmed this interaction.

Over half of the teachers saidthat they collaborated with thelibrarian in the planning anddesign of instruction, and 37% saidthat they collaborated with thelibrarian in delivering instruction.

During the project period, teach-ers and librarians used collaborativeplanning activities to focus ondeveloping collections, identifyingand gathering materials for specificunits of study, and helping studentscreate projects. In some schools,

teachers and librarians also usedshared planning time to developcommon instructional goals. Inthese schools, librarians began toteach research and information lit-eracy skills in the context of specificassignments rather than as part of apreordained curriculum. A relative-ly small number of librarians andteachers worked together on evalu-ating student performance.

Survey data, collaboration logs,and case study observationsrevealed varying degrees of collabo-ration from school to school. Mostcollaboration was grounded in twodomains. First, working with ashared awareness of instructionalgoals and curriculum, teachers andlibrarians collaborated to identifyresources to enrich that curricu-lum. Collection development pro-vided both the first reason for col-laboration between most librariansand teachers, and the basis for

most collaboration between thetwo.

Second, teachers and librariansworked separately, with the teacherin the classroom and the librarianin the library, to help students meetteacher-developed assignments.Approximately 20% of schoolsÕ col-laborative activities involved teach-ers and librarians dividing responsi-bilities for planning and deliveringinstructional activities in one loca-tion, such as the library. Deeper levels of collaboration that resultedin teachers and librarians assumingequally shared responsibility for allstudentsÕ learning proved more difficult to realize.

At first, teachers in many schoolswere skeptical about collaboratingwith the librarian and did not seewhat the librarian had to offerthem. However, as Library Powerpractices began to take hold,increasing numbers began to see

12


■ Before, the school librarians were the weakest link in

the entire library structure in this community. Now we

see them at the front end of the curriculum. We see a

different, more profound understanding among librari-

ans about the type of role they play. This shows me

that the Library Power training has had an impact over

time on the knowledge and framework of the librarians.

(Community college librarian, Library Power site)

Key Finding: Throughout partici-

pating schools, librarians and teach-

ers collaborated on planning and

designing instructional units, with

librarians sometimes sharing respon-

sibility for teaching.

13


the librarian as a colleague whoshared their vision for improvedlearning. When this occurred, thenew professional relationshipsLibrary Power fostered became thebasis for a school culture focusedon student learning.

Professional Development

Across all Library Power sites,professional development was thelinchpin that held together the corepractices and bolstered schoolsÕcapacity to make use of those prac-tices. In fact, Library Power sitesjudged professional development tobe so important that each site, onaverage, spent 26% of its $1.2 mil-lion grant Ñ about $308,000 overthree years Ñ for professional devel-opment activities. In many dis-tricts, this funding enabled thelibrary to be the focus of profes-sional development for the firsttime.

Working together, and with theassistance of the American LibraryAssociation and the PublicEducation Network, sites developeda multifaceted approach to profes-sional development. While themix of activities varied from districtto district, this approach typicallyinvolved:

¥ Developing knowledge andunderstanding of state-of-the-art library practice

through conferences, sum-mer institutes and work-shops with expert practi-tioners;

¥ Fostering new skills throughsite leaders providing in-school coaching, mentoringand pairing of experiencedlibrarians with novice prac-titioners;

¥ Encouraging new attitudestoward risk-taking and stu-dent learning by modelingof successful strategiesthrough presentations andschool visits;

¥ Building collegial relation-ships and professional learn-ing communities throughnetworking and professionalproblem-solving amonglibrarians, principals andschool-based Library Powerteams, both within and out-side the districts.

Given Library PowerÕs commit-ment to collaboration, many profes-sional development activitiesfocused on helping teams of teach-ers, principals and parents developthe skills needed to work togetherto implement the core practices.Program leaders called on complexstrategies to design activities tomeet the varying needs of librari-ans, principals and teachers. Forexample, because schools joined

the program at different times, dis-trict leadership often Òrolled outÓprofessional development at differ-ent levels for different participants.Thus, while some activities intro-duced new staff to core practicesfor the first time, others focused onhelping more experienced educa-tors hone their skills to higher lev-els of competence.

School librarians benefited con-siderably from many of these pro-fessional development activities,and some emerged as instructionalleaders in their own schools. Usingtheir newly acquired skills and sta-tus, librarians convened teachersfor collaborative conversations thatserved as the basis for more colle-gial and professional school cul-tures. As facilitators of these dis-cussions, librarians served as advo-cates for the use of core librarypractices to improve teaching andlearning and to develop a strongerprofessional community.

Key Finding: Schools invested in

professional development activities

that taught principals, teachers and

librarians how to integrate library

and other information resources into

teaching and learning.

rom the beginning, the goals ofLibrary Power included making thelibrary and its resources integral toteaching and learning. LibraryPower anticipated that the adop-tion of the core practices wouldconnect each schoolÕs library andlibrarian with its instructional mis-sion. In that context, librarianscould work as teachers and infor-mation specialists to coach studentsas they executed assignmentsdesigned through a collaborativeplanning process.

Over the study period, thenational evaluation examined theways in which Library PowerÕsresources and practices affected

assignments, instruction and oppor-tunities to learn. Researchersasked: Under what circumstancesdid Library Power work best to gen-erate better curriculum? Did teach-ers make use of Library Power toimprove instruction? Couldschools weave together LibraryPower core practices to supportambitious instructional reforms? Inwhat ways did Library Power fostera stronger professional cultureamong teachers and librarians?Among their findings:

■ Library Power and Curriculum

Core Library Power practices con-tributed to developing a shared cur-riculum and broadening opportuni-ties to learn in participatingschools. More students using bet-ter-stocked libraries more ofteneach week showed that teacherswere creating assignments thatrequired library learning. Usingupdated library materials, manyteachers expanded the curriculum

to include assignments that focusedstudents on using reading, researchand critical information skills. Insome schools, students in the earli-est elementary grades tackledresearch assignments, and teachersbegan to ask students to examinemultiple resources beyond the text-book to compare and contrastpoints of view on study questions.

Case studies and survey datatogether confirmed that LibraryPower contributed to a broaderawareness of the intended andimplemented curriculum amonglibrarians and teachers.

Collaborative planning and cur-riculum mapping provided facultieswith an overview of what teachersin all grades were teaching. Armedwith knowledge of the Òbig pic-ture,Ó librarians and teachers couldanalyze curriculum, identify gaps,eliminate outdated content anddevelop curriculum units thatadded rather than repeated contentas students moved from grade tograde. The process of curriculum

14


IV. Library PowerÕs Contributions to Teaching and Learning

■ All the children are ours, not just my class and your

class. As we collaborate, we share ideas that spark a

synergy. We feed off each other. I feel Library Power

has drawn many of our teachers together. (Teacher,

Library Power school)

Key Finding: Changes fostered by

Library Power helped schools engage

students in meaningful and educa-

tionally rich learning activities.

Instead of being limited to classroom

lectures and textbook assignments,

by using library resources-books, CD

ROMs, and the internet, students

were able to explore topics in more

depth.

F

analysis also resulted in new ways of packaging materials for easieraccess and use. For example, new materials, organized aroundthematic topics, boxed in tubs andcirculated from classroom to class-room, involved more students ininterdisciplinary units of study.

■ Library Power and Instruction

Throughout the participatingsites, Library Power also stimulatedinstructional change, which was modest in some places and moreambitious in others. Many teachersreported redesigning at least someof their instruction to capitalize onthe new resources Library Powerprovided. With a richer selectionof materials available, teachers drewstudents into what is known asÒresource-basedÓ learning, oftenaround a theme that teachersacross a single grade selected in col-laboration with the librarian. Asone teacher explained, ÒHavingmore materials in the collection hasmade it easier to do independentprojects with my students.Ó

TeachersÕ use of Library Power toengage students in more complexkinds of thinking provided exis-tence proof of the programÕs poten-tial to influence instruction. Casestudies showed that Library Power

changed some teachersÕ expecta-tions about the kind of researchyounger students could do, andthat teachers involved more stu-dents in library work, often for thefirst time. Library Power was a nat-ural partner for instructional pro-grams emphasizing interdisciplinaryinstruction, project-based lessonsand student inquiry that requireusing a variety of materials to devisesolutions to problems.

For example:¥ Sixth graders studying the

Civil War used variouskinds of information toinquire into the key eventsof the war. Students delvedinto factual questions andalso analyzed and interpret-ed information, developedtimelines, graphed casual-ties, wrote poems and pre-sented dramatic readingsbased on historical events.

¥ Elementary students usedlibrary resources to describewhat was already knownabout a specific topic in sci-ence, then developed anexperiment and wrote upresults in a form acceptablefor the local science fair,using concepts of Òcon-stantsÓ and Òindependentand dependent variables.Ó

¥ Inspired by a Library Powersummer institute, one fifthgrade teacher worked withthe school librarian, publiclibrarians and other teach-ers on her team to help stu-dents use original sources toconduct primary researchfor a study of their neighborhood.

Case studies highlighted a varietyof ways in which Library PowerÕspractice of collaborative planningencouraged professional relation-ships that, in turn, strengthenedschoolsÕ capacity for changinginstruction. These studies revealedthat teaching changes were mostprofound in schools where teachersshared an instructional philosophythat was aligned with LibraryPowerÕs vision of more ambitiouslearning. However, on its own, theprogram did not bring about wide-spread changes in teaching. Inschools with a less compatibleinstructional focus, a betterequipped and functioning libraryoffered a new setting for students togather facts from reference sources,take notes and respond to predeter-mined questions on a topic, butthese assignments did not alwaysengage students in deeper thinkingabout a topic.

15


■ Library Power and aCollegial ProfessionalCulture

One premise of Library Power isthat student learning is likely toimprove when teachers are engagedin professional conversations thatestablish shared goals for studentlearning. Where teachers sharegoals for more ambitious studentlearning, they are better equippedto mobilize their resources to helpstudents produce work that demon-strates learning of high intellectualquality. When teachers talk togeth-er about instruction, they are alsoin a better position to help oneanother achieve shared goals.

The initiativeÕs major strategy forpromoting a collegial culture in par-ticipating schools was collaborativeplanning between teachers and the

librarian. Over the years of the ini-tiative, Library Power enhanced col-laboration for instruction betweenlibrarians and teachers and amongteachers themselves. Evidencecame from librarians that theymore than doubled the proportionof teachers with whom they activelycollaborated. Half of the teachersreported that they work with thelibrarian on the planning anddesign of instruction, and almosthalf say that Library Power hasincreased their amount of collabo-ration. The majority of principalsattribute collaboration in planninginstructional units and in develop-ing collections to Library Power.

Case studies showed that collabo-ration was most effective whenteachers had already done someplanning specifically aimed atimproving learning objectives or

thematic units. For these teachers,Library Power provided the ration-ale for including librarians in teach-ersÕ conversations. New resourcesenticed teachers to plan for curricu-lum that made use of new materialsand strategies learned through pro-fessional development.

Collaboration was more difficultwhen, despite the librarianÕs efforts,teachers persisted in viewing thelibrary as a service to support tradi-tional instruction rather than aresource for instructional change.In these situations, when it came tocollaborating for new curriculumand instruction, areas usuallyreserved to teachers, many teacherskept the librarian at armÕs distance.

16


17


V. Lessons for Lasting Change:What Matters Most

ibrary PowerÕs core practicesreinforced one another to establishstronger professional relationshipsand routines that set the stage formore ambitious teaching and learn-ing. With better materials avail-able, teachers experimented withassignments that pushed studentsto use sources beyond standardtextbooks. In many schools, teach-ers began for the first time toemploy literature-based strategiesfor improving studentsÕ reading andwriting. One year after the pro-gramÕs end, almost three-quarters ofteachers surveyed described stu-dentsÕ attitude toward library use asmore positive than prior to LibraryPower. As one fourth grade teacherin a Library Power school reflected,Ò[Students] are more curious, theyask questions, theyÕre more interest-ed, they want to know more....They want to go do research, theywant to go to the library five timesa week.Ó

Still, aware that program changescan erode over time, the evaluationteam asked further questions:Under what conditions wouldschools and districts sustainprogress? What were the chancesthat Library Power's core practicesand strategies would become partof the regular routines of the dis-tricts and schools?

Library PowerÕs Òlessons learnedÓ

offer both hope and caution forthose seeking to make innovationsin teaching and learning part ofnormal school operations. Overallthe evaluation underscored thatfaithful adoption of all core prac-tices along with widespread accept-ance of these practices in a schoolboost the chances that schools willinstitute library reforms. Two yearsafter the end of the funding period,the great majority of schools persist-ed in using flexible scheduling andcollaboration at levels that indicat-ed Library Power was being institu-tionalized in school cultures, struc-tures and relationships.

What fosters institutionalizationof these practices? New and sus-tained funding, support from out-side the schools, leadership, staffdevelopment and a positive profes-sional culture, and a compatiblepolicy context favored the chancesthat Library Power would becomethe basis for Òthe way we do thingsaround here.Ó The varying degreesto which these conditions were inplace in different districts highlight-

ed the promises and tensions edu-cators encountered in applyingLibrary Power as a strategy for last-ing school improvement. Here is asummary of the key lessons:

■ New and SustainedFunding Matters

The infusion of new resourcesinto Library Power schools was criti-cal to their adopting the five corepractices and stimulating newapproaches to teaching and learn-ing. For example, refurbishing anti-quated facilities helped win overskeptical teachers and sparked theirthinking about how their students

Key Finding: The experience of

participating schools shows that

faithful adoption of all core Library

Power practices, along with wide-

spread acceptance of these practices,

boost the chances that library

reforms can become permanent.

■ You hate to say money is everything, but in some sit-

uations, you really do have to have new books. They

really weren't extras; they were making up for years of

neglect. (Librarian, Library Power school)

L

18


could make better use of thelibrary. As one Library Power director noted, ÒThe renovationseemed to catalyze an acceptanceand appreciation of the change inthe program.Ó

Funding was essential to replacepre-Sputnik era materials withattractive biographies, picturebooks and fiction from diverse cul-tural traditions. Up-to-date booksdrew more students into schoollibraries, and in the final monthsof the study period, almost two-thirds (64%) of teachers surveyedcited the expanded collections asthe most important contribution ofLibrary Power to their teaching.

Librarians used new resources toinitiate collaborative planning andstimulate changes in collegial rela-tionships. Even small amounts offunding enhanced professional col-laboration. For example, in oneschool, five mini-grants totaling$4,200 supported 18 teachers andthe librarian in planning forenriched units of instruction andstimulated teacher study groups onsuch topics as assessment, writingacross the curriculum, multipleintelligences and multiage group-ing. Several groups established aconsensus enabling them to devel-op new assessment standards andcreate new curriculum.

At the end of the funding peri-

od, some schools faced threats tocontinued funding posed by localproperty tax caps and the redirect-ing of scarce resources for text-books rather than library books.In this context, maintaining themomentum toward a higher qualitycollection posed a special challenge.

As one librarian pointed out,ÒOther things we can continuewithout money Ñ collaborativeplanning, thematic units, flexiblescheduling Ñ but you canÕt keepyour collection current withoutmoney.Ó

■ Outside Support Matters

Maintaining ongoing funding forLibrary Power is closely tied withmobilizing community support forthe kind of schooling supported bythe initiative. Over the course ofthe program, schools establishedpartnerships with a variety of enti-ties from outside their own walls tobuttress the core practices. Overallhelp came in the form of technical

assistance from national organiza-tions like the ALAÕs AmericanAssociation of School Librarians(AASL) and the Public EducationNetwork. Local business groupsprovided additional monetary andprogrammatic support. Parentsacted as ÒwatchdogsÓ for the proj-ect, and librarians affiliated withpublic and university librariesoffered connections to a wider pro-fessional community. As oneLibrary Power site director empha-sized, ÒThe more people who knowabout [the Library Power project]and the more people who buy intoit, the more likely it will be success-ful.Ó

Most important, local educationfunds, community-based organiza-tions that represent important segments of the larger community,were critical to building acceptanceand support for Library Power.These groups performed a key service as a conduit for fundingand volunteers, as an outside

■ The resource people helped us plan.... Making avail-

able those resources to us, having someone from out-

side this school help us plan for the future, what a

library should look like and what a library should be

doing, was immeasurable [help]. (Principal, Library

Power school)

Òchange agentÓ pushing for corepractices and as a vehicle for developing public understanding ofthe goals of the initiative. To theextent that communities, especiallythrough their local educationfunds, continue to demand thatschools offer the practices andresources associated with LibraryPower, its chances for becominginstitutionalized improve.

■ Leadership Matters

Systemic leadership aligned at alllevels was an essential element foradvancing and sustaining LibraryPower. At each stage of the pro-gramÕs development, leaders fromthe local education funds alongwith leaders from each school dis-trict acted jointly to put core prac-tices into place. This partnershipenhanced the programÕs chancesfor becoming institutionalized.

In the community, local educa-tion fund leaders designed andadministered the program districtwide. Library Power directors atthe local education funds wrotefunding proposals, developed com-munity engagement efforts, orches-trated meetings of librarians acrosseach district, and implementedmini-grant programs for profession-al collaboration for new curriculumand instruction. They also workedwith staff from inside the school

district to integrate Library PowerÕsstaff development program withprofessional development activitiesconnected to other initiatives.

At the school level, principalsÕleadership made a difference.Because professional collaborationdepended on teachers having timeto meet together with the librarianon a regular basis, many principalstook steps to ensure that theschool's schedule accommodatedthis purpose. Some administratorsalso held teachers and librariansdirectly accountable for collaborat-ing with one another. For exam-ple, one principal in a case studyschool required teachers to docu-ment at least three projects plannedwith the librarian. In this instance,teachersÕ use of the library in theirinstruction increased.

The challenge of promoting widespread and consistent leader-ship among principals, teachersand librarians remains an issue ofconsiderable concern. In some

case study schools, principalturnover resulted in the programÕslosing ground. However, the evaluation also found that schoolsin districts that had made a district-wide commitment to Library Powerhad less difficulty sustaining theprogram even in the face of leader-ship changes.

■ Professional Developmentand a Positive ProfessionalCulture Matter

Professional development wascritical to Library Power's success inintroducing librarians, teachers andprincipals to state-of-the-art librarypractices. Workshops, mentoring,school visits and networking allequipped librarians to encourageteachers to use the core practices tobenefit students' learning. Withnew knowledge and skills, manylibrarians emerged as instructionalleaders in their own right. As oneprincipal from a case study school

19


■ It doesn't always have to be the administrator [who

leads change]. I think that is a fallacy we have.... I think

leadership can [also] emerge from that four-member

team as long as the administrator is supportive and

does not shoot it down. I know where librarians have

taken leadership roles and teachers have taken the lead-

ership role. (District Library Power director)

noted: ÒLibrary Power has helpedfocus the role of the librarian ascentral to school reform. Itbrought libraries directly into themiddle of total school reform andcreated a legitimate role for thelibrarian as an instructional leader.In some schools, the librarian isnow perceived more as an instruc-tional leader than the principal.Ó

Sustaining Library Power's posi-tive effects also requires that teach-ers and librarians share a positiveprofessional culture grounded in acommon vision. To varyingdegrees, Library Power schools

developed such a culture, primarilythrough collaborative planning.Teachers in schools connected to a larger reform framework that promoted a vision of learning compatible with Library Power wereoften most willing to collaboratearound shared instructional goalsand activities.

■ Compatible PoliciesMatter

Policies that flowed from nation-al, state and local agencies hadnotable effects on schoolsÕ accept-ance of Library PowerÕs aims andpractices. When state or districtpolicies were compatible withLibrary Power goals, principals andteachers in participating schoolsmore readily understood andendorsed the purposes of LibraryPower. In this context, LibraryPower could add value to existingreform efforts. Without such acontext, it was more difficult foreducators to Òmake senseÓ ofLibrary Power and embrace its pur-poses and practices as part of theirdaily routines.

Where prevailing policy goalsparalleled the aims of LibraryPower and promoted studentinquiry and problem-solving,schools and teachers were encour-aged to use Library Power's toolsand strategies to help students

reach higher levels of achievement. For example, assessments in

effect during the period of the proj-ect in Kentucky reinforced the goalsof Library Power and provided arationale for Kentucky teachers toembrace Library Power practices.Likewise, teachers in schools affili-ated with broader school reformnetworks that shared LibraryPower's vision of student learningthrough understanding, made better use of core Library Powerpractices, including collaborativeplanning, than did teachers inother schools.

In contrast, where policies wereless aligned with Library Power, theprogram sometimes floundered.For example, New JerseyÕs elimina-tion of funding specifically allottedto school libraries left districts withthe choice of using block grantfunding to continue Library Powerpractices or pursuing competitivefunding sources. This choicemeant pitting the goals of schoollibrary reform against the goals ofother equally legitimate programsand services, including those ofschool counselors and nurses.Ultimately, this left Library Power vulnerable to local politicalwrangling.

20


■ Staff development

caused more change

than anything else we

did. (District Library

Power director.)

Key Finding: To the extent that

other states, or even individual dis-

tricts, implement similar policies, the

goals of Library Power will be

enhanced at the school level, and

institutionalization is more likely.

he evaluation of Library Powerhighlighted what schools couldachieve by mobilizing resources,leadership and a strategy forimprovement that put libraries atthe center of teaching and learningand moved librarians into themainstream of school life. Theseachievements were considerable.

At the same time, the evaluation,and the case studies in particular,also revealed dilemmas that havevexed other school reform initia-tives. At the end of the study peri-od, unresolved questions remainregarding how Library PowerÕsvision of learning can weather sys-temic problems associated withcompeting demands on schools,the underdeveloped capacity insome schools to enhance the intel-lectual quality of teaching andlearning, and unequal resourcesand access to knowledge withinand across schools. Here is a sum-mary of key findings:

■ Competing Demands

While Library Power held outthe promise of better use of learn-ing resources, more focused cur-riculum, challenging instructionand deeper student learning, otherdemands competed with thismomentum. A few schools wereconsistently distracted by the social

needs of their students, and thelack of resources available toaddress those needs. Some schoolsalso contended with the politicalpressure to raise test scores andÒlook goodÓ on statewide or districtassessments. This pressure inhibit-ed some teachers from movingtoward new kinds of instructionaimed at helping students learn toresearch questions of interest as away to develop new knowledge andunderstanding. These demandspotentially represent a powerfulundertow that could make it difficult for Library Power to realizeits full potential.

■ Varying Capacity forImproving Teaching andLearning

School reform involves changingmore than school structures andprocedures. It also requires creat-ing a culture based on sharednorms, values and expectations thatsupport improved student learning.Developing such a culture requiresthat professionals develop collegialrelationships based on trust andrespect.

Schools were not always receptiveto the vision of student learningand professional practice espousedby Library Power. AlthoughLibrary Power stimulated momen-

tum for stronger professional collaboration in many schools, andalthough it offered schools a set oftools that set the stage for richerclassroom practice, it could not, byitself, advance a vision of studentsworking at high intellectual levelsand teachers engaged in collegialpractice to promote studentachievement. When otherenabling conditions were not inplace, schools struggled to connectLibrary PowerÕs core practices toimproved teaching and learning.

Across participating districts,schools varied considerably in theircapacity to use Library PowerÕsresources and practices, especiallycollaborative planning, to realize avision for higher student achieve-ment. Some schools had a criticalmass of teachers who could developa schoolwide culture focused onresource-based learning. Teacherbeliefs and assumptions about stu-dent learning and the appropriaterole of the library sometimes sup-ported and sometimes underminedteachersÕ acceptance of collabora-tive planning for assignments that made new intellectual demands on students. Leadership changes or aleadership unable to develop thetrust and respect necessary for collegial practice has the potential to further underminesuch collaboration.

21


VI. Library Power and Dilemmas of Reform

T

■ Equity

While Library Power helpedaddress inequities in resources fromschool to school, inequalities inresources and capacity of schools tomobilize for reform remained anissue throughout the study period.

In some instances, existinginequalities in resources con-tributed to differences in imple-mentation of the core practicesfrom school to school. For exam-ple, schools that had already allocat-ed more support staff to the librarywere also those most likely toimplement new scheduling prac-tices; in fact, libraries with fullyflexible access had over four timesthe full-time equivalent in timecommitments from support staff asdid those that maintained accesson a regular basis.

Schools profiled in the evalua-tionÕs case studies also varied inteaching capacity, and in the con-text of existing disparities, LibraryPower introduced another opportu-nity to widen the gap in studentsÕlearning opportunities. For thoseteachers ready to invent more chal-lenging assignments, Library Powerincreased their skills and confi-dence for doing so, enhancing theirstudentsÕ opportunities to learn.

Teachers in schools that hadalready embraced substantiveschool reform initiatives, viewedLibrary Power as adding value totheir work, and they also foundthey could use Library Power toenhance instruction. Teachers inschools without affiliations toreform networks or in schools withlimited capacity overall could less

readily employ Library Power prac-tices to improve classroom practice.

Whether in terms of professionalcommunity, financial resources orinstructional quality, teachers andstudents in schools with greaterresources to begin with were those most likely to benefit fromthe expanded resources and opportunities for learning, availablethrough Library Power. These evaluation findings suggest thatschools and districts seeking toadopt Library Power must considerways to design an implementationplan that addresses existing disparities.

22


ibrary Power aimed to movelibrary resources and practices intothe mainstream of school life so asto expand enriching learningopportunities to all students school-wide. It sought to marry the workof school librarians to the work ofteachers, so librarians and teacherstogether would use new libraryresources to enhance student learn-ing and support a more positivecommunity for collegial practice.As librarians, teachers, principalsand change agents in the local edu-cation funds put the core practicesto work, most Library Powerschools realized these goals.

In the beginning, neither theDeWitt Wallace-ReaderÕs DigestFund nor reformers in the districtsanticipated that the programÕs prac-

tices and strategies could evolveinto a strategy for comprehensiveschool reform. But as the nationalevaluation learned, in some schoolsunder certain conditions, LibraryPower was a powerful catalyst forreforming teaching, learning and aschoolÕs professional culture. Thetools and practices of the programstimulated and broadened thescope of student reading, triggerednew research projects and accelerat-ed the acceptance of new visions oflearning for understanding.

Putting Library Power practicesinto place in some of the poorestschools in the nation, librarians,teachers and principals togetherhelped students learn more sub-stantive content and sharpenedtheir own professional practice.

Library Power did not solve exist-ing problems that plague urbanand low-income districts. It didnot provide answers to all thedilemmas schools encounter as theyeducate large numbers of disadvan-taged children with limitedresources. But the Library Powerstory reveals the potential forschool library reform to leverageimportant improvements in class-room practice and professional rela-tionships. It highlights the condi-tions that can foster or impede theacceptance of new practices, and itdemonstrates how schools caneffectively use library resources andpractices to promote a shared cur-riculum and contribute powerfullyto improve instruction.

23


VII. Summary

L

Atlanta, GADianne S. Mancus, Executive DirectorNancy Hamilton, Library Power DirectorAPPLE Corps, Inc.100 Edgewood Avenue, NESuite 1224Atlanta, GA 30303(404) 522-8640(404) 522-3021 (fax)

Baton Rouge, LAJenola Duke, Executive DirectorVolunteers in Public Schools1584 North 43rd StreetBaton Rouge, LA 70802(225) 923-8587(225) 923-8582 (fax)

Berea, KYGinny Eager, Executive DirectorLisa Gay, Library Power StaffJenny Wilder, Library Power StaffForward in the Fifth433 Chestnut StreetBerea, KY 40403(606) 986-3696(606) 986-1299 (fax)

Cambridge, MAMary Eirich, Executive DirectorJoan Stern, Teacher-LeaderCambridge Partnership forPublic EducationMIT Building E60-15677 Massachusetts AvenueCambridge, MA 02139(617) 253-7063(617) 258-5573 (fax)

Chattanooga, TNDaniel Challener, Executive DirectorPublic Education Foundation100 East 10th StreetSuite 500Chattanooga, TN 37402(423) 265-9403(423) 265-9832 (fax)

Cleveland, OHDeborah Howard, Executive DirectorCleveland Education Fund1422 Euclid Avenue, Suite 1550Cleveland, OH 44115(216) 566-1136(216) 566-1230 (fax)

Dade County, FLLinda Lecht, Executive DirectorCatherine Raymond, Library Power DirectorDade Public Education Fund4299 NW 36th Street, Suite 203Miami, FL 33166(305) 884-2172(305) 884-5633 (fax)

Denver, COBarbara Volpe, Executive DirectorEllin Keene, Director of ProgramsPublic Education & BusinessCoalition1410 Grant Street, Suite A-101Denver, CO 80203(303) 861-8661(303) 861-1501 (fax)

Lincoln, NEBarbara M. Bartle, Executive DirectorLincoln Public Schools FoundationBox 82889Lincoln, NE 68510(402) 436-1612(402) 436-1620 (fax)

Lynn, MAMary Sarris, Executive DirectorLynn Business/EducationFoundationC/o Demakis Law Office56 Central Avenue, Suite 201Lynn, MA 01901(781) 592-5599(781) 593-0561 (fax)

Mon Valley, PALinda Croushore, Executive DirectorPatti Hoke, Library Power DirectorMon Valley Education Consortium336 Shaw AvenueMcKeesport, PA 15132(412) 678-9215(412) 678-1698 (fax)

Nashville, TNDebby Gould, Executive DirectorMetropolitan Nashville Public Education FoundationP.O. Box 50640Nashville, TN 37205(615) 383-6773(615) 292-7573 (fax)

24


Directory of Library Power Programs and Contacts

25


New Haven, CTLinda D. Kosturko, Executive DirectorNew Haven Public EducationFund, Inc.703 Whitney AvenueNew Haven, CT 06511(203) 865-3255(203) 865-3244 (fax)

New York, NYBeth Lief, President**Sheila Salmon, Senior Vice PresidentNew Visions for Public Schools96 Morton Street, 6th FloorNew York, NY 10014(212) 645-5110(212) 645-7409 (fax)

Paterson, NJIrene Sterling, Executive DirectorPaterson Education Fund22 Mill Street, 3rd FloorPaterson, NJ 07501(973) 881-8914(973) 881-8059 (fax)

Philadelphia, PANancy McGinley, Executive DirectorPhiladelphia Education Fund7 Benjamin Franklin Parkway, Suite 700Philadelphia, PA 19103(215) 665-1400(215) 864-2494 (fax)

Providence, RIMargaretta Edwards, Executive DirectorPublic Education Fund15 Westminster Street, Suite 824Providence, RI 02903(401) 454-1050(401) 454-1059 (fax)

Tucson, AZSally Trattner, Executive DirectorEducational EnrichmentFoundation1661 North Swan Road, Suite 116Tucson, AZ 85712(520) 325-8688(520) 325-8579 (fax)

Wake County, NCM. Anthony Habit, PresidentMargaret Isenberg, Library Power DirectorWake Education Partnership605 Willard PlaceRaleigh, NC 27603(919) 821-7609 (919) 821-7637 (fax)

American Library AssociationJulie Walker, Executive DirectorAmerican Association of School LibrariansAmerican Library Association50 East HuronChicago, IL 60611(800) 545-2433(312) 664-7459 (fax)

DeWitt Wallace-ReaderÕs Digest FundCatherine Pino, Program AssociateAdam Stoll, Evaluation OfficerTwo Park Avenue, 23rd FloorNew York, NY 10016(212) 251-9700email: [email protected]

Public Education NetworkC. Vannessa Spinner, Director of EducationWilliam Miles, Manager, EducationW. Robert Saffold, Senior Associate, EducationKendall Joyner, Administrative Assistant,EducationPublic Education Network601 13th Street, NW, Suite 900 NorthWashington, DC 20005(202) 628-7460(202) 628-1893 (fax)

** Retiring June 24, 1999

DeWitt Wallace-ReaderÕs Digest FundTwo Park Avenue, 23rd FloorNew York, NY 10016Tel: 212.251.9700Fax: 212.679.6990E-mail: [email protected]

national library power program findings · wisconsinÕs school of library and information studies...

Documents