Santa's Selection Policy

I was discussing potential Christmas present options with my four year old son when it occurred to  me that, much like the TL, Santa has his own selection policy. As a timely opportunity to synthesise recently read information I thought I might write it out for him. Obviously I'm still in the early days of ETL503, so don't expect this to be too perfect.

• User Needs Analysis

The following questions should be asked and a reasoned judgement reached. A particularly strong response in one area may override all other considerations, eg. ardency of request or noise considerations.

Is there a patron-requested item for consideration?

Does the user already have this toy, or one similar?

Does the toy look exciting, but actually get quite boring after 30 mins?

How much mess will the gift create?

Is there any educational value to the item?

Will the user's family find this intensely irritating? e.g electronic tunes, repetitive messages, flashing lights.

• Delivery Method

Real world items will be delivered via Reindeer Sleigh.

E-items may be represented in gift form via a card or voucher.

Returns will not be accepted.

• Delivery Schedule

Annual delivery on 25th December for all Australian items.

• Payment

Santa does not require payment.

• Licence Agreement

The user must accept agreement of the licence for the following 12 month period, to be nice, not naughty.

Failure to fulfil the licence agreement will disqualify the user from further deliveries.

Don't Panic!!

I'm beginning to feel rather like Corporal Jones in Dad's Army. Term 3 hasn't even officially begun, yet I feel like I'm already running out of time to get the first assignment prepared. On top of that I now find I need to start preparing assignment 2 since the schools will all be closed in a few weeks time. All I can do is run around yelling 'don't panic' in the hope that things will all work out. Where is Captain Mainwaring when you need him?

At least I have my faithful blog here to exorcise these daemons. It also helps to look through the introductions forum. There are so many people with amazingly busy lives, or who have chosen to study multiple subjects (I'm not doing that again!). If they're able to get it all done and pass I really shouldn't have anything to worry about.  

I am Spartacus!

Everybody wants to be Spartacus, and it seems collection development wants to be collection management and vice versa.

Well, I've ploughed my way through chapter 1 of the Kennedy text, and also chapter 1 of a similar book by Peggy Johnson, and I feel that I now have a pretty thorough knowledge of US library history, along with the development of these two terms. So, here is what I now know:

• Most librarians use these terms interchangeably. 
• Collection development came first to reflect a more thoughtful approach to selection.
• As budgets, and collection growth, diminished collection management became the preferred term by many.

Essentially they describe the same processes. The only real difference is the emphasis on growth implied by collection development. Collection management does seem to be a more satisfactory name for the tasks undertaken to maintain a static collection.

However, in the futuristic utopia we now inhabit library collections are anything but static. We are supposedly providing an elastic collection that flexes to accommodate current user demands. There is constant development in the acquisition of access to new resources, and growth can potentially outstrip the weeding process.

Johnson, and the ALA apparently, have settled on the title of collection development and management. It's a bit more of a mouthful, but at least they don't have to waste any more time bickering over who's the head honcho here.

A Muse in the Cloud

photo by Alun Salt

Aristophanes would, I am sure, find much material for a rewrite of The Clouds based on my readings about collection management models. It would seem that in the future we teachers and TLs will be spending our time in lovely collaborative chats about what materials the teachers would like to have, assuming the TL can drag him/herself away from the consultations with local public libraries and community interest groups that seem to be a crucial element in collection development. Not that any of it really makes any difference because it's all about rapid response to student demands. We're simply here to guide them to an online expert, not to teach them anything.

Well, perhaps I am being unfair, but it seems odd that Hughes-Hassell and Mancall (2006) should describe the traditional collection management model as being time consuming, but replace it with something that sounds infinitely more so. Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't dare knock the value of collaboration. It's probably a hanging offence at least. But is this Collaborative Access Environment a model grounded in reality? Is there really value in consulting with everyone from the cleaner to the little boy who lives down the lane? Frankly, who has the time?

More to the point, there needs to be someone in the school who is the resource expert. They seem to think teachers are all experts in what is available for their areas. Hah! Anyone who has worked in a school environment knows that teachers have no idea what is available until it is thrust under their nose, and unless you tell them what's in it and how to use it they'll more than likely have forgotten about it by the next day. They are snowed under with planning, assessment and reporting, not to mention teaching. They really don't want to be burdened with selecting resources for the library, no matter how great it sounds in theory. Why should TLs be so keen to abandon an area where they can still be a respected expert?

This sounds a bit ranty, and I am not a reactionary traditionalist, but I don't think we should get carried away with ourselves. Yes, we should try to consider outside opinions in resource selection, but ultimately the school library is there to meet student curriculum needs. Teachers will look to the library for quality resources just as they have always done.

Working With a Hoe

Apparently the modules are now available for me to read. Hopefully there will be more than the Kennedy text since I'm still waiting for that to arrive. If nothing else, my experience with the Librariansbookstore.com has shown me that acquiring resources is not simply a matter of selection, and also perhaps that the early bird does not always catch the worm. Damn those sneaky worms!

Still, my lack of a recommended text to read has encouraged me to do a little preliminary research into this topic that may prove useful later. I'm not one to rest on my laurels.. they're far too scratchy. While I find myself reading a number of texts that are far more relevant to those working in public libraries, particularly in America, I have gleaned a few insights into collection development.

Apparently I'm going to need a good hoe, albeit a metaphorical one. It seems that the key to a good collection is weeding, alongside knowledge of the curriculum and the library users needs/interests. Yes, we need to know what are the best new resources to buy, but the way to start is with an audit of what is currently available in the collection. Identify items that are dated, damaged or simply unused and replace them with new ones that will serve current curriculum needs more effectively.

What scares me here is that things always take longer than you think they will, and I already think this sounds like an immensely time-consuming process. The texts I've read so far recommend having a clear policy on how much to weed from the collection each year, but I think it needs to include a clear recommendation for the number of man hours, or woman hours (I don't want to be sexist), that need to be devoted to this process in an ongoing fashion throughout the year.