Survey of Independent School Libraries: : Library Provision in Secondary Schools of the Headmasters′ and Headmistresses′ Conference

Citation

Hannabuss, S. (1999), "Survey of Independent School Libraries: : Library Provision in Secondary Schools of the Headmasters′ and Headmistresses′ Conference", Library Review, Vol. 48 No. 1, pp. 54-55. https://doi.org/10.1108/lr.1999.48.1.54.12

In recent years there have been several surveys of school library provision, notably the Library Association′s survey of secondary school libraries conducted by Sheffield Hallam University (see LA Web page ‐‐ http://www.la‐hq.org.uk/ssl97.htm), and work by Johnson‐Munday on libraries in independent schools (1992) and Morrison on independent schools in Scotland (reported in Scottish Educational Review, November 1996). In addition, the work by Margaret Kinnell (for example in works like Managing Library Resources in Schools, LA, 1994) have served to re‐emphasise the importance of having up‐to‐date information for accountability and evaluation and for the delivery of effective services in a fast‐changing information environment. Shakeshaft′s work began life as a Loughborough Masters degree (completed in 1997) and this work spins off usefully from it. Loughborough University is the home of LISU itself, and LISU′s record as an important centre for gathering and disseminating information on information and library matters is well‐known: newcomers will do well to ask for a list of publications (contact them at LISU Loughborough University, LE11 3TU, or e‐mail lisu@,lboro. ac.uk and Web page ‐‐ http://info.lboro.ac.uk/departments/lisu/LISUHP.html).

The survey of HMC schools investigated six issues:

1. 1.

   (1)funding;

2. 2.

   (2)management of school libraries;

3. 3.

   (3)professional support;

4. 4.

   (4)access by users to services;

5. 5.

   (5)library services; and

6. 6.

   (6)performance.

The research information is based on a questionnaire posted in June 1997 to the 236 HMC schools (response rate of 177 schools, i.e. 75 percent). The sampling frame included boarding and day and mixed schools, with pupils aged between 11 and 18 years, and an average school roll of 678. The research is of interest for any professional librarian, teacher, or policy maker in the school sector of education, and to any researcher in the field elsewhere. The summary is hard‐hitting: what emerges is a picture of neglect or marginalisation of the library and the librarian in these schools (for example, isolation from line management and key curricular committees), minimal staffing (and much by teachers who double as librarian), extensive access but low quality because qualified staff are not there to help users, little use of quite extensive automation for purposes of evaluation and performance assessment, and a thoughtfully noted falling short of the high expectations and perceptions people generally have of the independent school sector as a whole.

Under funding′′ the most common budgetary spend was between 4,000 and 6,000 (11 only received less than 2,000); the median spend on materials was 7,000 per school, while the average spend per pupil was 10.16. Under staffing′′, 60 percent were managed by someone with library qualifications (39 percent by chartered librarians, 31 percent by someone with teaching qualifications, mostly English); 66 percent were full‐time, most earning between 15,000 and 20,000. It is a good sector salary‐wise for non‐qualified people in libraries. Under management of school libraries′′, 78 percent had line‐managers, usually the headteacher, although meetings with line managers were infrequent in many cases (as necessary′′). Informal communication appeared to work best. A total of 43 percent said they had head of department status. Professional support took various forms, from librarians′ groups (such as the Independent Schools Librarians Groups, 82 were members) to library management system groups (ALICE dominated, being in 32 schools, ahead of heritage and microlibrarian and other systems). Under access by users to services′′, 93 percent were open during lessons, breaks and lunchtimes. A total of 60 percent were open for 31‐50 hours Monday to Friday, and 59 percent were staffed when open. Many had unstaffed hours and 40 percent said libraries were used for other purposes (such as classrooms, meetings, events). Under library services′′, most common size for bookstock was between 10,000 and 15,000, and 11‐20 books per pupil (LA adequate to enhanced provision as benchmarks). The average of 23 books per pupil made it higher than basic requirements for the national curriculum (of 13). Accessions were mainly 400‐600, 6 percent of total stock per year. A total of 95 percent held newspapers and 89 percent subscribed to six or more periodicals. Most used publishers′ catalogues for selection. Under performance′′, 59 percent had mission statements, kept issue figures but, despite widespread automation, did not use them systematically to assess performance. Only six (3 percent) appeared to maintain budget and expenditure figures and there were no reports of measurement of in‐house use. So a lot going on and a lot to do.

Such surveys are valuable in providing snapshots of moments of professional time and in contributing to the broader chronological development and understanding of efficiency and effectiveness in this sector. A useful bibliography demonstrates the importance of seeing this survey in conjunction with other contemporary research. The work is not merely of abstract analytical interest: there are numerous sharp criticisms and challenges here, for practitioners and for the policy‐makers who are involved with and ultimately responsible for school libraries. It gets underneath the rhetoric, identifies some key sins of omission, recognises real achievement where it exists, and signposts a way ahead that will make for better library provision.