Re: Library Job Description/Evaluation

[Marilyn Shontz <SHONTZ@DEWEY.UNCG.EDU>]

THe recent posting of the following (my very abbreviated form) "librarian"
evaluation form requires me to post a note of caution...

Categories included:
"This is the librarian evaluation record currently used ..  The form was
developed by the  Librarians' Association working with
the appropriate district personnel.
I.  Management and Organization
II.  Instructional Resources
 III.  Instructional Support
IV.  Instructional Environment
 V.  Acquisition and Processing Materials
VI.  Professional Relations and Responsibilities
VII.  Professional Growth and Development
VIII.  Special Duties"

Scoring was:

"Total SE Points
Total EQ Points
Total SE + EQ Points
The librarian received an evaluation rating of ___________________.
___________________________             __________________________________
Librarian signature/Date received        Administrator sign./Date completed
                          Conference Date: __________________
(The signature of the librarian indicates that he/she has reviewed and
recived a copy of this evaluation.)
Score Conversion Chart
SE + EQ
Total SE Points----25             Clearly Outstanding         34-41
Total EQ Points---16              Exceeds Expectations        26-33
                                  Meets Expectations          18-25
                                  Belows Expectations         13-17
                                  Unsatisfactory               0-12
Note:  The Appraisal Record will be utilized for librarians who evaluated
two times during the school year.  In this instance the subtotals from
both evaluations will be combined to yield a summary performance score."

Having made an exhausting study of performance appraisal for SLMS at one
time in my life, I applaud local efforts at developing fair and objective
forms for job performance. This is truly a problem which can only be and
must be solved at the local level.  However, the appraisal process must
avoid the use of "scores" and numerical ratings.

What happens with these systems is simple and wrong.  For example:
I gain a very high score on ...Acquisition and Processing Materials, but a
very low score on .... Professional Relations and Responsibilities. The rest
are medium to high. The resulting overall score is fine, or even better than
fine.  The implication to our peers (teachers and administrators) is that we
can be very bad at something, but it really doesn't matter.  Not the message
to be promoted!

For those who do not know, AASL has a publication with guidelines for
performance appraisal for SLMS -- call the ALA 800 phone number or email.

Finally, what we really need now is a type of "portfolio assessment" for
SLMS, for us.  I would be glad to collect and post information and ideas if
there is any interest besides my own.

Marilyn  SHONTZ@DEWEY.UNCG.EDU