The second in a series by Cliff Lewis

According to David Calender, Library/Media Department Facilitator for the School District of Lancaster, the district would do well to allocate funds to each school library from a central source, rather than channeling them through each school principal. Calender asserted that funding for certain beneficial yearly purchases—like graphic novels—can be easily redirected by principals to other competing priorities. Some principals, however, do not share Calender’s assessment.

Gary Hess, principal of Burrowes Elementary, allocated more per-student funding for library books than any other school in the district last year. Hess told NewsLanc that a large portion of this allocation was directed to the purchase of new graphic novels, which, Hess said, has created a powerful motivation for older students to access the library. Hess told NewsLanc that his initial reaction to Calender’s proposal of centralized budgeting “would be ‘no.’”

However, according to Hess, a centralized budget could wind up redistributing library funds in a such a way that principals like himself could be unable to make such ambitious investments.

In response to concerns like this, Calender maintained that a central budget would simply provide each library with a predictable baseline for their annual funding. “At least it would be a level playing field,” Calender said, explaining that principals like Hess would remain free to allocate additional funds from their school budget for library materials.

Ollie Jones, principal of Carter & MacRae Elementary, allocated $0 for library books last year—technically. Jones contested the use of that figure without an explanation. She explained that her library had actually received a private donation of $5,000 last year. In this regard, Jones asserted, her budgetary freedom allowed her to use funds that otherwise would have gone to the library to alleviate other pressing needs within the school.

From Calender’s perspective, cases such as this do not detract from his argument for centralized budgeting. “When grants come along, it’s a very nice way to supplement things. But a grant or donation should not supplant [regular] funding for a school library….This is the budget you can count on to be constantly updating your collection and ensuring current materials.” The arrangement at Carter & MacRae, Calender asserted, could actually send the message that principals need not budget for their school library as long as private donations are anticipated.

Jones, who oversees a student body with a 20-40% rate of homelessness, maintained that funding arrangements are never ideal in such a financially-strapped environment. “You have to balance limited resources to impact the most good,” Jones said, “We sit down here with the budget, and everyone has a wish list. Then we try to figure out how to best do that….Who would know how to do that other than the principal?”

The first in a series by Cliff Lewis

If Library/Media Department Facilitator David Calender has his way, control of library budgets in the School District of Lancaster will shift from the hands of individual principals to a centralized, district-level process.

As it currently stands, each library in the district is funded as a line item in its individual school budget; the allocation is subject to the principal’s judgment. If one principal wants to budget $24 per student for library books, they can do it; if another principal wants to budget $0, that’s their call as well.

In her book, “Brain Friendly School Libraries,” Judith Anne Sykes explains how vital these libraries are and how easily they come to be neglected:

“If the teaching staff is operating collaboratively, the library is at the center of inquiry, like the ‘brain,’ and the school library is an exciting place of authentic research, supporting learning and teaching for students and staff,…it will not be seen as a ‘frill’ or that ‘place down the hall to get a book for something.’ When dollars are tight or programs are not seen as central, they will be eliminated. But imagine a human without the brain!”

Calender noted that whereas the rudimentary “science” of reading is often established in the classroom, the school library serves to foster the “art” of reading—“that is where we get kids to want to read,” Calender explained. Though this effort may be as simple as having the right book for the right student, it is crucial to turning these students into life-long readers: “The only thing that all the research agrees on is that reading improves reading,” Calender asserted, “If there was a magic program, we’d all be using it.”

For a school librarian, reading is an end in itself: They have to carry books that kids will want to read. Calender noted that students will often rise to a more challenging reading level when presented with a piece of material that catches their interest—this material could be a graphic novel, the latest teen fiction, or a classic work of literature.

“Graphic novels are great. My librarians can’t keep them on the shelves,” Calender said, noting that students with as low as a first reading level have been able to enjoy and actively discuss graphic novels from the Bone series, which is ranked higher than a sixth grade reading level.

Many District libraries, however, are not budgeted with enough annual funding to frequently stock their shelves with such materials, Calender said. The library at Buchanan Elementary, for example, was only budgeted $1.90 per student for books in 2009; Carter and MacRae, with an understandably strapped budget, officially allocated $0. Burrowes Elementary, on the other hand, budgeted $24.80 in 2009, more than doubling the High School’s allocation.

(The library at Carter and MacRae did, however, receive funding from a private donor in 2009.)

From Calender’s perspective, these variances amount to inexcusable inequities. Some principals, Calender contended, are far too prone to compromise on library funding when faced with all of the competing budgetary demands within their schools.

A centrally allocated library budget, Calender said, would “level the playing field” for district librarians, securing a definite yearly budget from which to plan and allowing all supplemental donations and grant funding to remain just that—supplemental. Calender also noted that shifting budget control to the hands of library specialists would help “get the most bang for our buck,” since these professionals, himself included, work hard to keep up with book reviews, school curricula, and industry standards.

Some district principals, however, disagree with Calender’s perception of the matter. For these administrators, the head of a school is most in touch the unique needs of that particular student body. Principals of this mind include Ollie Jones of Carter and MacRae as well as Gary Hess of Burrowes Elementary. Their perspective will be more closely discussed in the next installment of this series.