A Restricted Grant and a 15-Year-Old 500s
Riverside High School enrolls 1,400 students. The library budget for next year is $8,000 in general funds plus a $10,000 STEM grant that requires at least 70% of grant spending on STEM materials. The collection contains 18,000 volumes. The 500s (pure science) average 16 years old, make up 28% of the collection, and circulate at 4%; fiction circulates at 62% of total checkouts. A biology teacher has requested 30 copies of a contemporary novel for literature circles, and a parent has filed a formal reconsideration request for a health book that discusses contraception. The district also renews a $3,000 periodical package that few students use. The principal wants a “balanced” plan and warns that the parent “has friends on the board.”
1. Propose an allocation of the $18,000 and justify the tradeoffs. Show how you meet the grant requirement and address the collection gaps.
Read the worked answer
Total funds are $18,000. I would treat the grant as an opportunity, not a constraint to minimize. Grant: $10,000, all STEM, which exceeds the 70% requirement and avoids spending restricted money on non-STEM. General: $3,500 to replace the oldest and highest-need 500s not covered by the grant; $2,500 for 30 copies of the novel plus 30 replacements or a second title for lit circles; $1,000 for current health/sex-ed materials, including a replacement for the challenged title if the review retains it; $1,000 for a reduced periodical subscription or database access. I would not renew the full $3,000 periodical package without usage data; a database may serve more students. This plan addresses the worst collection gap (science average age 16 years), a direct curriculum request, and currency in health, while meeting the grant. The tradeoff is fewer periodicals, but 4% circulation in the 500s and low periodical use do not justify preserving the status quo. I would document usage before canceling and keep one popular magazine title if students request it.
2. How should the reconsideration request be handled, including access to the book while the review is pending?
Read the worked answer
The reconsideration must follow the district's formal policy, not the principal's warning about board politics. I would acknowledge the parent's request in writing, provide the policy and review timeline, and explain that the book remains available during review unless the policy requires temporary withdrawal. I would not debate the book's merits in the hallway or on email; I would route questions to the committee. The committee should include a teacher, a parent, a librarian, and an administrator, and should read the whole book, reviews, and selection criteria. I would keep the challenged title in the collection until a written decision. If no policy exists, I would recommend the board adopt one using a standard reconsideration process. Separately, I would not treat the parent's board connections as a reason to prejudge. Removing access before review would chill intellectual freedom and violate sound practice; retaining it is not defiance but procedure.
3. What criteria would you use to weed the 500s, and how would you avoid creating a new gap?
Read the worked answer
I would weed the 500s by MUSTIE criteria - misleading, ugly, superseded, trivial, irrelevant, or available elsewhere - plus curriculum alignment and circulation. I would pull the oldest 16-year-average titles first, check copyright and scientific accuracy, and compare against state standards and teacher assignments. I would not discard a title merely because it is old: a classic field guide may still be accurate, while a 2005 genetics text is not. I would analyze by Dewey range to avoid creating a new gap; for example, replacing all of chemistry while leaving astronomy untouched would be poor balance. I would consult science teachers on topics they actually teach and on student research assignments. Withdrawn titles would be replaced, not simply removed, and I would use review sources and diverse authors. I would track circulation after replacement to see whether low use was a content problem or a format/access problem.