Uploaded on

Results of national study of ICT in education focussed on issues of school libraries - analysis of 4 questions only.

Results of national study of ICT in education focussed on issues of school libraries - analysis of 4 questions only.

More in: Education
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Be the first to comment
    Be the first to like this
No Downloads


Total Views
On Slideshare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds



Embeds 0

No embeds

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

    No notes for slide
  • Vast majority of Canadian schools have a library -nine out 10 schools have libraries. Range in provinces was from 91% in Alberta to 98% in New Brunswick.In territories, NWT 76% and 82% in Nunavut. More public (96%) than private (75%) schools have libraries. Elementary schools more likely to have a library; mixed less likely.
  • Average TL per school = .25 FTE. Much provincial variation – PEI had .56 TL per school, .03 Quebec, , .07 Nova Scotia and Alberta. BC, Ontario, NFL and Lab were above national average. Across the country, schools had slightly higher average no. of technicians (.26) than TLs. Provinces with lowest no. TLs had highest no. technicians (AB, Sask., NS, Manitoba). Quebec had highest average teacher non-librarians and professional librarians. Clerical workers represented 1 out 5 FTE employees devoted to library – with highest in Manitoba, and lowest in NFL. In provinces where categories not represented, data was too unreliable to publish.
  • PEI and BC lead here with Ontario far behind with less than 1 TL per 1000 students. Quebec and NS had lowest ratios.
  • PEI, Ontario and BC led all provinces with largest percentage of schools having one or more TL on staff. Lowest percentages were found in Quebec, NS, NB and Alberta. Substantial recent decline in Alberta from 252 in 1998 to 106 TLs in 2000. BC relies heavily on part time TLs with over half of schools part time TLs – as is case in PEI and NFL. Differences for FTE TL between elementary (lower at .62) and secondary (higher at 1.37)—explained by lower student pop. In elementary.
  • US studies show link between reading scores and well funded libraries. Total budget across country was $56.2 million with ¾ for physical collection. Much variation between provinces – provinces and territories with highest budgets for physical collection per school ($5 – 6000) were Yukon, Alberta, and Saskatscheran; lowest budgets found in NFL, Nunavut and NS. Highest budgets for audio and electronic were AB, SAs, NW; lowest budgets found in NS, and NB.
  • Sask and AB still lead by this measure – per student; with above average spending in Manitoba and BC; below average in Ont, and Quebec – illustrating an east –west divide for per student spending on library collection development.
  • Nationally, 2 out 3 school libraries were provided with funds at school level; 60% at school board level or district. Provincial funding accounted for about one quarter of school library funding. About 30% of principals cited other sources of funding for the library including fundraising (book fairs and donations). Variations across provinces are evident – over 1/3 Ont schools listed “other” as major funding source – a sharp increase since the 6% figure reported in 2001 by People for Education. NB had lowest percentage of funds from school board level’ SASK had highest. 67% of NB schools receive funding provincial level, Ontario only 17%.
  • Findings suggest that staffing has an impact on implementation of technology in schools. Positive and significant relationships found between number of TLs and all software applications. Highest correlations found for use of spreadsheets and databases; software supporting creative works (fine arts, music, graphic design); Lowest for generic applications, word processing, and using the Internet to disseminate information. Strong correlations between incorporating specialized applications into teaching practices and number of TL staff. Caution in interpreting – may reflect school funding for purchasing these specialized software applications, and also need to consider varying responsibilities of each librraian, own skill level, and other technical support in school.
  • Significant correlations between school library budget and TL staffing in the school library were found for all use of all applications except software for special needs. Highest correlations were with presentation software, spreadsheets and databases, and software supporting creative works.
  • All but four jurisdictions are below standard in funding and staffing. AB, SK, YT have acceptable standards of budgets; only the NWT reaches exemplary levels of funding for the school library collection. There are variations within provinces at district and school levels however.


  • 1. Canadian School Libraries and Teacher Librarians Results from the 2003/2004 Information and Communications Technologies in Schools Survey http://www.statcan.gc.ca/cgi-bin/imdb/p2SV.pl?Function= getSurvey&SDDS =5051&lang= en&db = imdb&adm =8&dis=2 Presented by Dr. Marlene Asselin, University of British Columbia MSLA & CASL Joint Conference October 21 2005
  • 2. Sponsors
    • ICTSS conducted by Statistics Canada; sponsored by Industry Canada’s School Net Program
    • Additional support for school library component by:
      • Library and Archives Canada
      • Canadian Association for School Libraries
  • 3. School Library Questions
    • 1. Is there a library in your school?
    • 2. Number of FTE employees devoted to the school library:
    • teacher librarians
          • Teacher non-librarians
          • Professional librarians
          • Library technicians
          • Clerical staff
          • Other
    • 3. Budget for school year’s annual expenses for the library’s collection development: Physical, audio, electronic
    • 4. Sources of funding for library expenses: Provincial, school district, school
  • 4.  
  • 5.  
  • 6.  
  • 7.  
  • 8.  
  • 9.  
  • 10.  
  • 11. Table 7
  • 12.  
  • 13.  
  • 14.  
  • 15.  
  • 16. Below Standard Acceptable Exemplary