So I know many of you have seen this February article from Scholastic’s Administrator titled “Meet Your New School Library Media Specialist: Not Your Grandma’s Librarian…” I’m pretty sure I saw it when someone published it on the SCASL list serv, but I had already seen it in Doug Johnson’s Blue Skunk blog too. SC received some really good kudos in that article, particularly for our LMS ADEPT program. What I did not realize was that the AASL Blog had president Sarah Kelly Johns had posted her thoughts on the article in February as well, and best she directly expressed an intrigue with our ADEPT instrument used to evaluate South Carolina Media Specialists.
I know many who actually worked on the development of the instrument, and I’ve had the chance to sit on evaluation teams (as many of you know, ADEPT is not done by a sole administrator, but rather a team of no less than two evaluators, one an administrator and one a peer.) With many of us being “singletons” in our schools, that peer is usually another practicing LMS from a neighboring school. I’ve been involved in the evaluation of LMS’s a couple of times using the instrument, and I must say it is a fair instrument that really reflects today’s school library media program. As a matter of fact, I’ve used my presence on these teams to “educate” principals on the vernacular of a current best practice library, and gotten some of them look at their program compared to best practice, hoping to be a catalyst for change in a school (i.e. showing how a fixed schedule does not really fit the evaluation instrument–that only an open or flexible schedule fits the evaluation instrument.)
Have I been able to make changes for the schools where I served on the team–particularly ones using a fixed schedule and a librarian as a planning period? No, I cannot say I have. I did though get the last school that I served on the team with to increase the school library budget so that the LMS would not be cited in the instrument on the collection when no monies had been allocated at all. I am proud of that instrument too, and hope that our administrators will take a second look at it now–particularly now that we are getting attention from a national perspective. I am also glad to know that activists in our organizations like AASL President Sarah Kelly Johns and Doug Johnson are giving our state kudos for the evaluation program we use to assess LMS’s. Do I think it will be a catalyst for major change? No. I will continue doing my part in educating administrators when I serve on evaluation teams, I promise. But we all know some things look good on paper, and that ometimes the reality bites. I wonder how many LMS’s in our state that have been required to do ADEPT have passed with flying colors, even though they have pathetic budgets, outdated collections, and no time for true collaboration (b/c they are the planning time for teachers)? I would wager many. Also let’s not forget the only LMS’s who have to go through the evaluation program are LMS’s who enter the profession as a first year educator, experienced LMS’s who move into South Carolina (and that is not every district or school, even), or LMS’s who work under progressive administrators who see the program and want to strive for change (and hope that the evaluation will be either a cure-all or cause a vacancy to fill.) Either way it is viewed, I still think the LMS Adept program deserves the merit and attention it is getting, and it makes me proud to work as a teacher librarian in the state of South Carolina.
One more note–for those of you who are using blogs for personal professional development, please note that the AASL Blog has relocated and renovated. Update your feeds to this address. Check out the new and improved AASL Weblog at http://aasl.ala.org/aaslblog or http://aaslblog.org
For those library media specialists and district library supervisors who worked so hard on the committee to write the ADEPT Performance Standards (PSs) for School Library Media Specialists, I must say it is very gratifying to finally have their work validated beyond the boundaries of South Carolina.I am truly grateful for their foresight, their vision, their dedication, and their commitment to that project.They did an amazing job of writing standards that are truly reflective of what the building-level library media specialist should be about on a daily basis. I might add that these standards were written BEFORE the LMS standards for National Board Certification.
I would like to point out that ALL library media specialists are to be evaluated based these state professional Performance Standards. It is true that only those LMSs mentioned in the original posting are formally evaluated on all 7 of the PSs; however, for the other library media specialists (those being informally evaluated through Goals-Based Evaluation or whatever it’s called in your district), their goals must be written to reflect these state professional standards for school library media specialists. So, as you are contemplating your evaluation goals for next year, remember that your goals should reflect PSs 2-7 and how what you do in your library media center improves student learning and achievement.
Thank you Martha, for that clarification. When writing the original post, I did not have the names accessible (though in hindsight they are probably listed on the web somewhere). I still don’t think I would have listed all of them (since the post was already wordy and too long) but I do feel remiss in not mentioning you by name as the one who spearheaded the writing of a document that reflects today’s best practice library. South Carolina is ever so lucky to have your leadership. We are truly blessed.
Thanks, Cathy. Yes, it was my idea but the credit goes to those library media specialists who spent many hours writing those standards to make sure they were clear, concise, and truly descriptive of the job of building-level library media specialist.