An overview of Napa Valley School Library Consortium

1. Napa Valley School Library Consortium A different solution for a very difficult time Kate MacMillan, Sandy Biale, Michelle Holguin

2. Who We Are & What We look Like Napa Valley School Library Consortium Members * Michelle, Susan, Lisa, Paula: SHUSD Janis, Cathy: CJUSD Michelle W, Alissa, Matilda; PARTNER Loreen, Sandy ,Suzanne, Anne, Colette, Cathy, Roberta, Sean, Stefani, Pam Terry, Diane, Amy, Nancy, Terry, Julie, Roberta, Janine, Deana, Tina, Bobbie, Grace, Joanne, Linda, Laura, Lorrie, Melissa, Louisa, Cathy, Deb: NVUSD Kate: Library Services Tim: IT: Bea, Aeries

3. con·sor·ti·um a. An association or a combination…..for the purpose of engaging in a joint venture. b. A cooperative arrangement among groups or institutions: a library consortium

4. The Rationale for School Library Consortiums* Innovative solutions to support library management at the district and site level Keep libraries open Databases and automation programs stable Equal access to resources for all students *An integrated Web based library system is required for this type of school library consortium

5. What the NVSL Consortium Can Do Provide technical hardware, stability and support Provide training/networking Host automation software & library databases Provide managed library services as per MOU

6. What the NVSL Consortium Cannot Do Mandate District or Site staffing Mandate District or Site budgets Deviate from the MOU* *Agreed upon by member administrations

7. What Are the Benefits?Consortium members benefit from peer support Consortium host provides: Up-to-date technology Technical support Hardware/Servers Software upgrades Database hosting/including backups

8. What Other Benefits? Autonomous cost efficient funding Agreed upon managed library services as per MOU District/Admin buy-in Strength of numbers Training and networking opportunities

9. Cost Efficient Funding

10. Fees = Funding

11. Background: California School Districts 1998 – 2001 State funds for school libraries Updated Collections Sophisticated library automation programs Outcome: improved school libraries

12. Post California Public School Library Act of 1998 Library and technology staffing not keeping pace with school library needs. Districts have difficulty funding necessary library services …..or even keeping their libraries operational

13. Background: Tough Times Require Innovative Solutions ( 2004 – 200?)

14. Background: Funding Shortages

15. Background … Spread All Over Napa County: 612 square miles Small rural districts: tiny remote sites: private/parochial schools Little federal funding: average poverty level Minimal funding, less purchasing power of larger districts

16. Background: NVUSD NVUSD = acts as a COE ISP for the county Established business relationship with surrounding districts, private/parochial schools Technology and library staff to implement and support a library consortium

17. Background: How It All Began……. 2003 Napa COE Curriculum Library Server crash Web Collection goes offline Curriculum Library can’t circulate IT asks NVUSD for assistance Partnership formed

18. Background: Consortium Partners Napa Valley USD Napa County Office of Education: 2004 Calistoga Joint Unified: 2005 Justin Siena High School: 2005 St. Apollinaris: 2006 St. Helena Unified: 2007 Blue Oak School: 2008

19. Strength in Numbers Consortium = members = power

20. So What Technology Does the Member Need ? Web based ILS program Sufficient internal bandwidth Sufficient to internet Ensure speed Variable depends on District size .

21. What Technology Does the Host Need? Stable ILS-trained IT department SQL based server Sufficient bandwidth Available staff to provide support to sites

22. So …. What’s the Next Step? Consortium host and member(s) agree upon Memorandum of Understanding MOU = a business plan MOU = a menu of services

23. The Glue That Holds It Altogether The MOU (Memorandum of Understanding) Board approved document that outlines services and charges Protects both parties A form of business plan * ILS Lead included Memorandum of Understanding

24. Different districts, schools and libraries Require Different solutions while maintaining centralizedautomation services Recommended Reading Management

25. Management Styles Centralization = clearly defined structure Consortium = collaboration, loose structure Centralization = top down management Consortium = open ended leadership

26. Centralized Management Centralization = all resources under one authority All decisions from one source Top down ‘spider’ management

28. Collaboration

30. The Relationships

31. Most Important Relationship

32. IT Facilitates ILS implementation at the hardware level ILS upgrades Data queries and updates Troubleshoot and/or fix the problem(s)

33. Library Services *ILS Administrator represents consortium and host *DL: Site Teacher Librarian/ Media Specialist represents district

34. Implementation Team Vendor Relationship Vital Training Support Communication

35. Who Does What? Library Services IT/Technology Support Training

36. Technology IT support includes* *IT administrator Student management specialist Technicians Bandwidth ILS Program SQL based Server (Implementation Team)

37. Library Services Facilitates and supports ILS implementation at the consortium level Provides managed library services including Administrative guidelines Initial training sessions

38. Managed Services(as per MOU) District and/or site reports Library committee and district site visits Collection development Trainings; cohort meetings Library 101 Help Page Liaise with technical support

39. Managed Services Collaboration

40. Support: Annual Reports Collection/circulation data including: Collection maps; Collection reports Annual inventory results Weeding lists with recommendations Site and aggregate reports to consortium schools and School Boards

41. Library Services/Collection Development Recommend curriculum/ standard based materials Participate in site library committee Provide current collection maps

42. Collection Development Communication Keeping track of list and requests Titlewave Accounts Baker and Taylor Web lists Permabound Web lists One account per site Common password

43. Staff Provide growth and staff development opportunities to all members User group/open circle training model Network Collaborate Share

44. Training* Training = all library staff Consortium decides needs and presenters Correlates training sessions to needs Provide networking and feedback opportunities Request professional resources as needed Open ended circle model *biggest change

45. Communicating, Networking & Sharing How to keep the information lines open How to keep information current How to keep information available 24/7 How to keep information relevant

46. Library 101 Help Page Support Available 24/7 Archived trainings Current Library information Areas of interest for parents, students, teachers and library staff Online resource links Current newsletter

47. Logical Hosts = County Offices of Education Form consortium with member districts Node for the DCP (Digital California Project) and the Internet Service Provider (ISP) Expand existing technology to include school libraries

48. The Outcome and the Result Consortiums are cost efficient Generate income to support the consortium host and pay for general support of the consortium member Offer much needed support and direction to school libraries

49. Thanks for taking Napa Valley USD School Library Consortium Guided Tour Any questions or comments, please contact Kate MacMillan