Impact of a Less Restrictive Circulation Policy in an Elementary Library

Home , Library circulation

University of Northern Iowa UNI ScholarWorks

Curriculum & Instruction Faculty Publications Faculty Work

10-1-2017

Kristen Reinhardt Downes University of Northern Iowa

Karla Steege Krueger University of Northern Iowa

See next page for additional authors

Let us know how access to this document benefits ouy

Part of the Curriculum and Instruction Commons, and the Library and Information Science Commons

Recommended Citation Downes, Kristen Reinhardt; Krueger, Karla Steege; and Taylor, Joan Bessman, "Impact of a Less Restrictive Circulation Policy in an Elementary Library" (2017). Curriculum & Instruction Faculty Publications. 22. https://scholarworks.uni.edu/ci_facpub/22

This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Work at UNI ScholarWorks. It has been accepted for inclusion in Curriculum & Instruction Faculty Publications by an authorized administrator of UNI ScholarWorks. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Authors Kristen Reinhardt Downes, Karla Steege Krueger, and Joan Bessman Taylor

This article is available at UNI ScholarWorks: https://scholarworks.uni.edu/ci_facpub/22 fEaTuREARTICLE Impact of a Less Restrictive Circulation “Teacher librarians who use restrictive circulation policies of one book at a time inhibit students’ access to books, Policy in an potentially undermining their reading growth.” Elementary Library

KRISTEN REINHARDT DOWNES, KARLA STEEGE KRUEGER, AND JOAN BESSMAN TAYLOR Peer Reviewed for Publication October 1, 2017

chool communities and educational their borrowing limits after the survey. However, national K–12 level data re- standards clearly recognize that read- veal policies that limit students’ access S to books. An informal online poll ad- ing is a foundational skill for all learners. ministered by Library Media Connec- tion showed that 33% of the teacher In light of this, the American Association of School Librarians (AASL, 2010) librarians who responded said they lim- notes the critical position of teacher librarians to partner with other educators ited their students to one or two books to promote literacy and provide opportunities for library use. Specifi cally, school at a time; an additional 36% limited libraries are charged with providing “open, non-restricted access to a varied high students to three or four books (“One quality collection of reading materials in multiple formats that refl ect academic Question Survey,” 2009). These limita- needs and personal interests” (para. 6). AASL (2011) supports open access through tions counter best practices established fl exible scheduling in the library to give students access to materials throughout through research that emphasizes the the school day. The theory behind this position statement posits that the more stu- need for expanded exposure to books dents read (in both variety and quantity of text), the better readers they become in order to support reading growth (Krashen, 2004). Research in support of self-selected reading shows that student (AASL, 2010; ALA, 1996; Allington, access to a school library of at least 500 books is associated with higher reading 2014; Krashen, 2004; Krashen, Lee, & scores (Krashen, 2011, p. 29). Krashen (2011) makes a compelling argument for McQuillan, 2012). providing greater attention and support to libraries: “The obvious practical impli- cation is that if we are serious about encouraging literacy development, we need to liTERaTuRE REviEw be serious about providing access to reading material” and provide more than “lip service to improving libraries” (p. 28). One aspect of providing greater access to Previous studies suggest that greater reading material is increasing borrowing privileges. The current study examines access to books is associated with how a change in library policy to reduce restrictions on borrowing privileges im- higher student reading achievement. pacts students’ actual borrowing habits and the loss of books. Reading enthusiast Stephen Krashen Teacher librarians who use restrictive circulation policies of one book at a time has tirelessly argued that students need inhibit students’ access to books, potentially undermining their reading growth. access to a variety of texts in order to Sadly, the majority of teacher librarians, 71% of respondents in one Iowa survey, become successful readers, highlight- allowed kindergarteners to check out only one library book at a time (Johnson & ing a range of studies showing that Donham, 2012). Fortunately, 36% of those respondents said they decided to raise students who read more, know more

16 TEACHER LIBRARIAN 45:1 (Krashen, 2004; Krashen et al., 2012). control of their book choices, thereby priate for this study because it can be Ramos and Krashen (1998) studied increasing books read and improving used to “facilitate evaluative research” the impact of expanded library circu- attitudes about reading. Undoubtedly based on a natural setting, and the re- lation, extended to 10 books a week, a school library program contributes sults may be applied to the improve- for elementary children who lacked to early literacy development through ment of library practice (pp. 52–53). adequate access to books at home and reading selection and greater circula- This case study used two guiding were previously permitted only one tion of books. Yet, despite accepted questions: (1) Has circulation of books book per week from their library. Stu- research in support of greater access to increased at all grade levels since the dent and parent surveys revealed that books, nearly a third of teacher librar- library circulation policy change? (2) providing children with increased ac- ians reported reasons for limiting kin- Has the library experienced a higher cess to library books was overwhelm- dergarten students to fewer books than rate of loss of books since the circula- ingly a powerful reading incentive. their older peers, including the belief tion policy change? Providing students access to books they are too young to be responsible for Data sources included circulation is perhaps even more important for multiple books and the fear of losing records by grade level and a library young students with low socioeco- books (Johnson & Donham, 2012). system report for “lost copies.” Books nomic status (SES). Studying factors that were paid for were subtracted contributing to the early reading skills mEThOd from the tallies of lost books for this of children, Fantuzzi-Chapman (2012) study, because the library recouped the found that the family’s SES had a larger This urban midwestern private school, cost. The teacher librarian, as one of impact on early literacy skills than which has approximately 450 students this study’s authors, provided access to other variables. Additionally, Allington in grades K–6, was purposefully se- the circulation data and perspectives (2014) investigated how reading vol- lected for this study because the li- on dynamics that might have otherwise ume affects fl uency and achievement, brary circulation policy was recently gone unexamined. noting that signifi cant access to books changed. Before the 2013–2014 school is essential for all students. Keith Curry year, the policy limited kindergarten findingS Lance and others have conducted re- and fi rst grade students to only one search with a similar goal to evidence book per six-day cycle library visit; Table 1 compares monthly circulation the importance of increased access to beginning in 2013–2014, they were al- data for two years before (2011–2013) library books. Over 20 statewide stud- lowed four books per visit. Thus, our and two years after (2013–2015) the ies of school library programs have data represent two years of library cir- library circulation policy change. Stu- shown that increased access to school culation activity that took place under dents checked out over 80% more library resources was associated with the more restrictive policy and two books during the latter two years after greater student achievement in reading years governed by the less restrictive the change. and writing (Gretes, 2013). policy. It is worth noting that students Accordingly, the per-student cir- Given this predominance of evi- were allowed to exchange their books culation data by grade level in Table dence that greater access to books is between their library classes during all 2 shows a higher average and range of essential to help students—particularly four years of the study. Fifty percent books checked out during 2013–2015 those with low SES—improve their of the teacher librarian’s work time than in the earlier years. Understand- reading, it follows that the professional in the school library (mornings) was ably, the most notable difference is role of the teacher librarian in build- spent in a fi xed schedule, and the other at the lowest grade levels, because ing a collection relevant to the school 50% was assigned as a gifted education those students experienced the big- population and advocating for open teacher (afternoons). One library para- gest change in borrowing limits. The access cannot be overlooked. Beard professional was assigned to the library library circulation policy during 2011– (2009) found that the teacher librarian in the mornings. 2013 stipulated different borrowing helped students reading below grade The case study approach (Choem- limits for different grades: kindergar- level connect to the library and take prayong & Wildemuth, 2009) is appro- ten and fi rst grade could check out

OCTOBER 2017 17 Table 1. K–6 Library circulation before and after the circulation policy change. Table 3 compares the number of books lost per grade level under the old Old Policy New Policy policy (40 books lost) and new policy Month 2011–2012 2012–2013 2013–2014 2014–2015 (62 books lost). Notably, kindergar- August 920 472 451 1,276 ten, fourth grade, and sixth grade students actually lost fewer books after September 1,645 1,963 3,674 3,337 the borrowing limits had increased. October 1,665 2,225 3,880 3,531 At the same time, third and fifth grade November 1,395 1,470 2,475 2,457 students saw modest increases in the December 1,009 1,173 2,510 2,588 number of books lost under the new circulation policy. The greatest loss of January 1,466 1,638 2,144 2,611 books under the new circulation policy February 1,479 1,646 2,297 2,565 occurred among students in first and March 1,284 1,282 2,346 2,671 second grades. These were the grades experiencing the greatest change in April 1,451 2,041 2,831 3,538 policy from one to two books to four May 394 691 1,235 780 books. Kindergarteners were new to Total 12,708 14,601 23,843 25,354 the school, and as such, they entered 2-year averages 13,655 24,599 under the new circulation policy. Therefore, they learned to be responsible for four books from their first week only one book per library visit, second check out four books. The change initi- of school. Grades five and six were al- grade could check out two books, third ated in fall 2013 set the same borrow- lowed four books per visit under both and fourth grade could check out three ing limit of four books at a time for all the old and new policy, so it seems fit- books, and fifth and sixth grade could grades, K–6. ting that there was little change, with a slight increase in books lost among fifth

Table 2. Library circulation range and average per student. grade and a 50% decrease among sixth grade students. Old Policy New Policy There were, however, two addi- range and average per student range and average per student tional factors that may have influenced the number of lost books: students Grade 2011–2012 2012–2013 2013–2014 2014–2015 losing multiple books and a change in K NA* 5–26 42–103 41–76 the lost book replacement policy. Some (average 18) (average 70) (average 57) students lost multiple books all at one time or at different times through- 1 12–28 NA* 25–111 30–109 (average 21) (average 68) (average 71) out the school year. In fact, 28 books were lost by students who lost mul- 2 6–49 16–52 27–98 10–125 (average 29) (average 32) (average 59) (average 61) tiple books across the 4-year span. A stricter book replacement policy also 3 13–53 4–65 24–105 22–111 may have influenced the increase in the (average 30) (average 34) (average 57) (average 59) number of books lost during the latter 4 6–69 3–72 0–104 10–108 two years. During the first two years, (average 28) (average 31) (average 39) (average 58) students were allowed to replace a lost 5 NA* 3–94 5–185 2–116 book monetarily or by donating any (average 27) (average 52) (average 44) book in its place. Some students do- *Grade-level data, including sixth grade, was no longer available in the automation system. nated books from home in place of the

18 TEACHER LIBRARIAN 45:1 book that was lost, so more books dur- Table 3. Number of books lost before and after the library circulation policy change ing those two years were “replaced” Old Policy New Policy Difference Before/ and no longer included in the lost book After Policy Change total. During the latter two years, the library required that lost books be paid for or replaced with the same book title; Grade 2011– 2012– 2013– 2014– Increase/Decrease 2012 2013 2014 2015 this more rigorous policy may have im- pacted the lost book totals. K 4 5 2 6 –1 Undoubtedly, the new library cir- 1 1 5 11 9 +14 culation policy supported a sharp in- 2 3 1 11 5 +12 crease, with 80% more books checked out, and although there were 55% 3 1 2 1 3 +1 more books lost overall during the two 4 4 3 4 1 –2 years of the new library circulation 5 2 3 6 0 +1 policy (62 books) than there were dur- 6 2 4 2 1 –3 ing the old policy (40 books), the losses were comparably smaller than the cir- Total 17 23 37 25 +22 culation increase. somewhat alleviated by the fact that the previously qualifying as losses under Conclusion losses that do occur often result from the former book replacement policy factors less related to one’s circulation are now included in the total for lost It is understood that teacher librar- policy than to the specific individuals items. ians are responsible for maintaining involved. For instance, in this study the Based on this study’s findings, their collections and that ensuring the same students lost multiple books. Rec- teacher librarians are advised to allow return or replacement of materials is ognition of such patterns can provide lower elementary students to check out part of that responsibility. However, opportunities for personal involvement the same number of books as upper fear of loss of materials should not and teachable moments or can open elementary students. In addition, it is prevent librarians from attending to the door for targeted interventions as recommended that librarians provide their shared goal of getting books into needed, rather than restricting all stu- the option to exchange books between the hands of children to encourage dents based on the actions of a few. scheduled class library visits. Both continuous reading. At the same time, other factors may practices support reading promotion Less restrictive borrowing policies make the incidents of loss appear more and agree with Krashen (2011): “If we permitting several books to be bor- significant than they actually are, such are serious about encouraging literacy rowed at a time make it easier to both as changes in other library policies that development, we need to be serious encourage reading and equate to a per- inadvertently affect calculations. Here about providing access to reading ma- ception of the library as useful and re- again, losses in this study were magni- terial” (p. 28). sponsive. Fears related to losses can be fied by the fact that missing items not Future research is recommended to study impacts from revised circulation policies in additional locations; Less restrictive borrowing policies permitting several researchers may also want to track the frequency with which students return books to be borrowed at a time make it easier to both to the library to exchange books between class visits to see whether this encourage reading and equate to a perception of the variable may also change due to stu- library as useful and responsive. dents’ perceptions of new access policies.

OCTOBER 2017 19 REfEREnCES dissertation). Alfred University, Al- port, IA. She holds a BA in elementary fred, NY. Retrieved from http://pqd- education and an MA in school library Allington, R. L. (2014). How reading topen.proquest.com/doc/1234067418. studies from the University of North- volume affects both reading fl uency html?FMT=ABS ern Iowa. reinhardt.kristen@gmail. and reading achievement. International com Electronic Journal of Elementary Educa- Gretes, F. (2013). School library im- Karla Steege Krueger is associate tion, 7(1), 13–26. pact studies: A review of fi ndings and professor of school library studies at guide to sources. Retrieved from https:// the University of Northern Iowa. She American Association of School Li- www.baltimorelibraryproject.org/wp- teaches reference, research, practicum, brarians (AASL). (2010). Position content/uploads/downloads/2013/09/ and an introductory course to school li- statement on the school librarian’s role in Library-Impact-Studies.pdf brary studies standards and library eth- reading. Retrieved from http://www. ics. She formerly codirected a grant at ala.org/aasl/advocacy/resources/state- Johnson, L., & Donham, J. (2012). UNI in leading technology integration ments/reading-role Reading by grade three: How well do in preservice teacher education. Prior school library circulation policies sup- to that, she worked as a teacher librar- American Association of School Li- port early reading? Teacher Librarian, ian at the Southeast Webster (Iowa) brarians (AASL). (2011). Position state- 40(2), 8. and New Hampton (Iowa) school dis- ment on fl exible scheduling. Retrieved tricts. She holds a BA in English and from http://www.ala.org/aasl/advo- Krashen, S.D. (2004). The power of secondary education, an MA in school cacy/resources/statements/fl ex-sched reading: Insights from the research (2nd library media studies, and an EdD in ed.). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. education. [email protected] American Library Association (ALA). Joan Bessman Taylor is associ- (1996). Library bill of rights. Retrieved Krashen, S. D. (2011). Free voluntary ate professor of school library studies from http://www.ala.org/advocacy/in- reading. Westport, CT: Libraries Un- at the University of Northern Iowa, tfreedom/librarybill limited. where she teaches courses in school library administration, curriculum Beard, T. M. (2009). Library media spe- Krashen, S., Lee, S., & McQuillan, J. development, technologies for librar- cialists and intervention with below-grade (2012). Is the library important? Mul- ies, and children’s and young adult readers (Doctoral dissertation). Uni- tivariate studies at the national and in- literature. In addition to working with versity of Central Missouri, Warrens- ternational level. Journal of Language school librarians, she has taught infor- burg, MO. Retrieved from http://pqd- and Literacy Education, 8(1), 26–38. mation professionals in a range of con- topen.proquest.com/doc/305068894. texts: public, academic, and special and html?FMT=ABS One question survey. (2009). Library digital libraries. Prior to becoming a Media Connection, 28(2), 47. librarian, she taught middle school lan- Choemprayong, S., & Wildemuth, B. guage arts. She holds a BA in English, (2009). Case studies. In B. M. Wilde- Ramos, F., & Krashen, S. D. (1998). an MEd in secondary education, an muth (Ed.), Applications of social re- The impact of one trip to the public MLIS, and a PhD in library and infor- search methods to questions in information library: Making books available may be mation science. [email protected] and library science (pp. 51–60). West- the best incentive for reading. Reading port, CT: Libraries Unlimited. Teacher, 51(7), 614–615.

Fantuzzi-Chapman, L. M. (2012). The Kristen Reinhardt Downes is a PK–5 relationship between the home literacy teacher librarian at Clear Creek Amana environment, family background, parent- Community School District in Iowa. child attachment, and parent behaviors on Previously, she worked as a teacher children’s early reading skills (Doctoral librarian in Iowa City, IA, and Daven-

20 TEACHER LIBRARIAN 45:1