Talking Points for Restoring the School Library Printed Materials Grant

Talking Points for Restoring the School Library Printed Materials GrantTalking Points for Restoring the

A coalition of organizations representing educators, reading specialists, school library media specialists, literacy advocates, parents and the press hope to see the 2007 Indiana General Assembly reinstate the School Library Printed Materials Grant. This dollar-for-dollar matching grant program provided up to $6 million a year between 1997-98 and 2001-2002 school years that school corporations could draw upon to purchase new books and other printed materials, such as newspapers, for their school libraries. Budgetary constraints ended the program prior to the 2002-2003 school year.

What you need to do:

When opportunities arise for you to interact with state senators or state representatives, encourage them to support the re-establishment of the School Library Printed Materials Grant in the next budget, which will be created during the 2007 legislative session. Others who should be encouraged to support the grant program include Gov. Mitch Daniels and Superintendent of Public Instruction Suellen Reed and their policy directors.

Talking points favoring the grant program:

Although television is often blamed for the lack of interest in reading among young people today, the culprit seems to be the inaccessibility that these young people have to good books, magazines, and newspapers. Although students may have access to a school library media center, many of the centers do not have sufficient funds to provide reading material of high quality and current interest. In 1995, prior to the funding of the School Library Printed Materials Grant, the average school library book was printed in the 1960s.
Under current law, school corporations must spend $8 per student per on their library programs (511 IAC 6.1-5-6). This can include not only materials, but also salaries of library-related staff. By providing adequate staffing, school districts can quickly reach the spending per student without providing funding for any new materials. To keep a library collection current, at least two new books per student should be purchased each year.
State funding for school libraries from the School Library Printed Materials Grant resulted in substantial increases in the number of books purchased and more importantly the number of books checked out of those libraries by students. With the demise of the grant program, both book purchases and book circulation numbers declined dramatically.
While funding for new books, magazines and newspapers has declined, more than 25 percent of Indiana schools have reading as one of their goals in their Public Law 221 plans to improve educational quality.
Current books and newspapers are needed for schools to succeed in meeting Indiana academic standards for English/language arts. Newer titles encourage reading for both students interested in current events and students who are reluctant readers. Access to updated, reliable materials and materials of interest to students will improve proficiency in the following English/language arts categories: writing,literary response and analysis, reading comprehension, word recognition, fluency and vocabulary developmnent.
School libraries also need the funding to give Indiana students access to resources on a variety of topics impacting instruction in social studies, science, art, music, mathematics and other curricular areas, and materials of interest to students.

For more information, contact Jack Humphrey, director of Middle Grades Reading Network, (812) 423-5570 or jh25@evansville.edu.

Additional Talking Points for Restoring the School Library Printed Materials Grant

Linda Cornwell

Literacy Consultant

Literacy Connections Consulting

Standard 1 - Reading: Word Recognition, Fluency, and Vocabulary Development

1. Books are a rich source of academic vocabulary.

Hayes, D.P., & Ahrens, M. (1988). “Vocabulary Simplification for Children: A Special Case of ‘Motherese’.” Journal of Child Language, 15, 395-410.

2. Because books present more advanced and less familiar vocabulary than everyday speech, they take students beyond their existing oral vocabularies and present them with new concepts and words.

Blackowicz, C. & Obrochta, C. (2005). "Vocabulary Visits: Virtual Field Trips for Content Vocabulary Development." The Reading Teacher, 59(3), 262-268.

3. Reading volume [the amount of reading that students do] has a significant impact upon word recognition, spelling, vocabulary development, reading comprehension, and general knowledge. The amount of print exposure and reading volume can account for cognitive differences among children and significant differences in their reading achievement. Reading widely and frequently has significant dividends for all students, not just the smart kids or the able readers.

Cunningham, A.E., & Stanovich, K.E. (2003). “Reading Matters: How Reading Engagement Influence Cognition.” In D. Lapp & J. Flood (Eds.) The Handbook of Language Arts, (pp: 666-675). Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Cunningham, A.E., & Stanovich, K.E. (1998). “What Reading Does for the Mind.” American Educator, Spring/Summer, 22:8-15.

Standard 2- Reading: Reading Comprehension

1. Students in both 4th and 8th grade, when exposed to real texts - books and stories - rather than short passages in basal readers performed better in reading comprehension.

Wenglinsky, H. (2003). “Using Large-scale Research to Gauge the Impact of Instructional Practices on Student Reading Comprehension: An Exploratory Study.” Education Policy Analysis Archives, 11, 19.

2. The amount of reading students do is a strong predictor of reading comprehension, outweighing such factors as intelligence, economic background, and gender.

Reutzal, D.R. & Gikkubgsworth, P.M. (1991). “Reading Time in School: Effect on Fourth Graders’ Performance on a Criterion-referenced Comprehension Test.” Journal of Educational Research, 84: 170-176.

3. Extensive reading of developmentally appropriate material of many kinds, both in and out of school, results in substantial growth in vocabulary and comprehension abilities and in the information base of students.

Squires, J.R. (2004). “Extensive Reading.” In G. Cawelti (Ed.). Handbook of Research on Improving Student Achievement, 3^rd ed. Arlington, VA: Educational Research Service, p. 126.

4. School libraries that provide ample collections of instructional-level texts play a key role in literacy learning.

Mosenthal, J., Lipson, M.Y., Sortino, S., Russ, B., & Mekkelsen, J. (2001). “Literacy Lessons in Rural Vermont: Lessons from Schools Where Children Succeed.” In B. Taylor & P.D. Person (Eds.), Teaching Reading: Effective Schools and Accomplished Teachers (115-140). Newark: NJ: Erlbaum.

Reading Achievement:

1. Access to an abundance of books ...results in increased reading motivation and increased reading achievement.

Guthrie, J.T., Schafer, W.D., Von Secker, C., & Alban, T. (2000). “Contributions Of Instructional Practices to Reading Achievement in a Statewide Improvement Program.” Journal of Educational Research, 94(4), 211-225.

2. According to the results on the 2000 PISA [international test of reading performance], students who were habitual readers and who were engaged in their reading were more likely to have high levels of measured reading achievement.

Krisch, I., deJong, J., LaFonain, D., MacQueen, J., Mendelovits, J., and Moneur, C. [2002]. Reading for Change: Performance and Engagement Across Countries: Results from PISA 2000. Paris, France: Center for Educational Research, Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development.

3. The level of reading engagement significantly effects reading achievement on NAEP, even when background variables of nonverbal intelligence, background knowledge, and socioeconomic status are statistically controlled for. Students who are engaged readers read more, use their reading strategies more strategically, read more complex text, and score higher on tests of reading achievement.

Guthrie, J.T., Wigfield, A., Metsala, J.L., & Cox, K.E. (1999). “Motivational and Cognitive Predictors of Text Comprehension and Reading Amount.” Scientific Studies of Reading, 3: 231-256.

4. Access to interesting texts is a critical factor in promoting reading engagement and motivation. According to Guthrie and Humenick, access to interesting texts ranks highest of four key factors influencing motivation and engagement.

Guthrie, J.T. & Humenick, N. (2003). “Motivating students to read.” In McCardle, P. and Chhabra, V. (eds.), The Voice of Evidence in Reading Research. Baltimore, MD: Paul Brooks Publishers.

5. Legislators need to know that one key to reducing the variability in cognitive differences among students caused by lack of print exposure and reading volume is to provide them with engaging books to read. The name of the game is increased academic achievement. If we can show legislators that reading achievement will improve with increased access to books, they may fundthe Library Materials Grant legislation.