Where Does Your Authority Come From?

Empowering the Library Media Specialist as a True Partner in Student

Achievement

by Allison Zmuda

Allison Zmuda is an Educational Consultant with Education Connection in Litchefield,

CT. She was the keynote speaker at the Treasure Mountain Research Retreat #12,
Pittsburgh, PA, October 2005. Email: azmuda@hughes.net

The library media center has long been a beloved and specialized learning environment
for students, a place rich with opportunities to pursue specialized inquiries, interests,
and ideas. It is the most natural venue in schools for differentiation, integration of
technology, and collaboration. In recent years, state and national standards for
information literacy and technology have delineated a framework for what students are
expected to know and be able to do as a result of their work in the library media center.
Noted education researchers, system leaders, and authors as well as foundations have
further bolstered the importance of the library media center as an integral part of 21st
century learning so that students are prepared for the demands of the workplace. There
has never been a more exciting or potentially powerful time to be a library media
specialist.

There is, however, one fundamental problem that has existed for years and has
frustrated specialists for years: How do we get the authority to teach students? If they
don't come to the library media center at all or come for a meaningful purpose (i.e., a
task where students are expected to work in critical and creative ways to collect,
analyze, and synthesize information), then how can students be expected to achieve the
standards?

True authority does not come from the superintendent, principal, or even the teachers
worked with every day; it comes from a very large achievement gap. This achievement
gap is the chasm between the academic expectations for learners and the current
achievement levels of students within the school. Most specialists have been aware of
this gap for years and many have vocalized those concerns and, consequently, lobbied
for broader access to students and more resources. The major stumbling block, however,
is that without data to illustrate this gap, it looks like a rhetorical contention based on
the unabashedly biased viewpoint of those professionals that seem to have the most to
gain. So, to claim the authority needed to close this achievement gap, it is important to
get the data to show the current student achievement levels, compare that to
state/national standards for learning, and then propose short-term and long-term ways to
close those gaps.

What kind of data are we talking about?

A reliable measure of student achievement requires getting a collection of different

types of evidence. For example, the amount of time a student has spent in the library
media center is a necessary, but not sufficient, piece of information because seat time
alone is not a predictor of learning success.

Questions to guide the data collection process:

• 1. What do we have to find out?

• 2. What data are currently available?
• 3. What new data do we need?
• 4. How do we obtain data?
• 5. How can we collect data in a valid and reliable form?

Guidelines to support the effort:

• Measure what is necessary, not what is convenient

• Keep focused on what is being evaluated: student learning, not individual
educators
• Involve key stakeholders in dialogue about the intent of the data collection
process (before, during, and after)
• Involve staff in the collection and analysis
• Use data to produce a collective mandate for change

Examples of powerful data sources include:

• Existing information literacy requirements (how much time students at each

grade level are required to be in the library media center and the focus of that
requirement-orientation vs. development),
• Analysis of state content standards in all subject areas to determine how many
require information and technology literacy,
• Required core assessments completed by all students in a grade level/course to
evaluate incorporation of information and technology literacy,
• Daily attendance figures in the library media center (also accounting for how
many times the center was full which limited the use for others)
• Percentage of teachers who bring students to the library 0-2, 3-5, and 6+ times
per year,
• Nature of the tasks students are working on (i.e., classify by level on Bloom's
taxonomy).

Now that I have the attention of the staff, what do I do next?

Once the preliminary data is collected and communicated, the next challenge is how to
act on that information in a way that enlists the support of classroom teachers and
leaders to raise student achievement. It is critical to keep the focus on the results so that
staff see subsequent actions (both on a daily basis and in long-term planning) as a
necessary means to achieve the desired end. Whatever the status quo currently looks
like (nature of relationships with teachers, existing resources, level of support from
school, system, and state leaders), two conditions must be met to positively impact
student achievement:

• 1. Library media specialists view every point of contact with a teacher and
his/her respective students as a true collaboration of content areas.
 • 2. Library media specialists view the collection, analysis, and reflection on
student achievement data as a primary part of their work.

Condition #1: Library media specialists view every point of contact with a teacher and
his/her respective students as a true collaboration of content areas.

Collaboration rooted in trust and respect among committed adults is the most essential
condition for meaningful change in any organization. "Without trust and respect, there
is no real learning and dialogue about the need for change" (Wagner 1997, 29). The
library media specialist must never sacrifice the opportunity to develop information
literacy skills just to pacify or cajole a teacher to come to the library media center. Not
only does this deference diminish student clarity about what research and synthesis
involves, but also relegates the specialist to a supporting role instead of a meaningful
partner in the professional learning community. Specialists must communicate the
vision and expectations for student learning in the library media center so that teacher
and student alike are clear on what is expected when they work in this environment.
(See Figure 1).

Figure 1. A PDF file is also available for reproducing.

• When staff come together to work on any task, they must first be clear about
what they are doing and why they are doing it. This provides the opportunity for
classroom teacher and library media specialist to envision what the student
learning outcomes will be, thus creating potent internal accountability. (See
Table 2.)
 • Teamwork is not something that should be talked to death upfront-it can happen
quickly if teachers are required to do the work together and the success of the
work is measured by the established outcomes.
• Staff should be expected to "surface problems to which they have no immediate
solutions" so that the organization can learn (Elmore 2005). This requires more
than complaining about a concern; it requires that each issue be collectively
scrutinized to identify root causes and possible action steps. Once action steps
are identified, both teacher and specialist understand what they are supposed to
do and how those actions will impact the work of the team.

The legacy of these opportunities is that members of the staff come to trust that the
increased capacity they have together eclipses their best individual efforts. They not
only see the powerful connections that already bind them together, but work much more
proactively to maximize the power of these connections.

Condition #2: Library media specialists view the collection, analysis, and reflection on
student achievement data as a primary part of their work.

Devoting more time to assessment of student achievement requires spending less time
on other tasks. The question is how much priority is given to the analysis of student
work by both the library media specialist and the school in general? There is a growing
body of research that a powerful library program positively impacts student
achievement scores as much as 10-20% (Loertscher and Lance 2003). To realize such
gains, however, the focus of the specialist must be broader than merely daily operations.
That focus requires more personnel assistance, both in the form of volunteers and paid
assistants, however, it is much more cost effective to have the most expensive
employee(s) in the library media center focused on the most important priorities of the
learning environment.

When teachers bring their students in as an "isolated event" (Table 2), library media
specialists can still evaluate student performance on information and technology literacy
standards with or without involvement of the classroom teacher. The challenge is to
have a way of evaluating students that is highly efficient (because of a minimal amount
of time to supervise many different students with whom there are differing degrees of
familiarity). One of the most promising practices for this is to track student work into a
basic database using a handheld device (i.e., Palm). Imagine a basic database that has
the names of all of the students in the school (this can interface with existing school
software) and the information literacy standards for each grade level(s). A basic rating
system such as Novice Learner, Apprentice Learner, or InfoStar (2004) by Koelichn and
Zwaan could be adopted so that library media specialists could evaluate student
performance with or without collaboration from the supervising teacher. This would
provide critical data about the overall proficiency of students to use as leverage for
more time and broader access to students for improvement of student achievement. It
also would reveal which students have greater opportunities to learn because of the
frequency and quality of their access to the library media center.

Table 2.
Nature of Teacher/Library Media Specialist Collaboration
Isolated Event Coordinated Effort Partnership
Design Teacher approaches Teacher solicits Teacher comes to specialist
 library media specialist information/ ideas with an idea for a research
to reserve space in the about what resources task or with a topic and works
library for students to are available to with the specialist to further
complete a task using support student work develop the idea.
resources. for the assigned task.
Execution Teacher supervises Teacher and Teacher and specialist each
of student work in the specialist provide provide support to students
Instruction library media center. support to students during the completion of all
Specialist provides during the aspects of the task: orienting
class with a basic completion of the them to the resources at hand;
orientation of available task: teacher supporting their use of the
resources (if primarily on the task resources and their efforts to
appropriate) and may parameters and collect, analyze, and
have made a list of grading expectations, synthesize information; and
relevant resources if specialist primarily the clarification of task
given enough lead time. on how to access/use parameters/grading
Teacher and students resources. expectations.
ask for assistance from
the specialist as
questions/ problems
arise.
Evaluation Teacher evaluates Teacher evaluates Teacher and specialist score
of Student student work. Task student work (the student work together using a
Work parameters and grading grading expectations common rubric that includes
expectations may or were shared with the criteria both within the
may not have been specialist prior to the teacher's content area and
shared with the students work in the information literacy.
specialist in advance. library media center).
Reflection Specialist waits to find Teacher shares Based on student
and Next out how it went— information with achievement of the task,
Steps receives anecdotal specialist on how it teacher and specialist draw
information from went. May submit a conclusions about what the
teacher and/or sample of student next task(s) should focus on
student(s) but does not work or a copy of the to meet academic
see student work or task for the expectations both within
analysis of student specialist's binder. teacher's content area and
achievement. Next steps are information literacy.
reserved until the
teacher has another
task in mind that
requires the
specialist's support.

When teachers and library media specialists work as part of a "coordinated effort"
(Table 2), specialists can advocate including a strong information literacy component to
classroom assessments and rubrics either designed on behalf of or in conjunction with
the individual teacher. This should be a natural pairing because information literacy is
embedded in virtually all subject area content standards and requires limited additional
effort/planning time on the part of the classroom teacher. Not only can specialists
coordinate with teachers on this one-on-one basis, but also at the department/content
level by applying the same approach to the development or refinement of core
assessments (i.e., research requirement, I-search project, family tree visual, WebQuest).
By analyzing existing tasks and student work samples, specialists can propose revisions
to the task and scoring criteria so that the focus is sharpened on targeted information
and technology literacy skills in addition to department/grade level expectations.

When teachers and library media specialists work in "partnership" (Table 2), there is a
powerful opportunity to ensure that the tasks require students to demonstrate their
competency in the subject. "The goal of competency makes clear that the aim of
education is not the ability to acquire and retain information-the traditional
formulation…[it is the] ability to do something with what you know-to apply
information in the search for a solution to a problem or to create new knowledge-creates
an expectation of more rigorous forms of accountability and assessment"(Wagner 1997,
45). This partnership involves teacher and specialist working together in the design,
delivery, and evaluation of student learning. While this is the most time consuming of
all three forms of collaboration, it does maximize the effectiveness of the instruction
and can have the most significant impact on student achievement.

To some, this article may be an untenable proposal; to others, it is a call to action; and
to still others, it is a confirmation of what they have been saying all along. Regardless of
individual perspectives on this issue, the fact is that without the authority to work with
students in a rigorous, relevant, and consistent manner, no curriculum document on the
national, state, or local levels will ever impact student learning.

Resources

• Koechlin, Carol, and Sandi Zwann. Build Your Own Information Literate
School. Hi Willow Research and Publishing, 2003.
• Loertscher, David V., and Keith Lance. Powering Achievement: School Library
Media Programs Make a Difference: The Evidence. 2nd ed. Hi Willow, 2002.