POLICY: C.F.I.S.D. (HOUSTON, TX)
Checklist Evaluation
Title/Cover Page: Average
Authorization Page: Average
Table of Contents: Average
Background Information: Missing
Objectives for Collection Development: Excellent
Responsibility for Collection Management: Good
Specific Evaluative Criteria: Excellent
Proportional Media Breakdown: Missing
Acquisition Procedures: Good
Intellectual Freedom
Special Collections: Missing
Networking Agreements: Missing
Glossary: Missing
Appendixes: Missing
Index: Missing
General Critique
C.F.I.S.D.'s concisely articulated collection development policy adequately covers all key components. The A.I.S.D. policy, however, employs a more appealing layout. The A.I.S.D. document is thoughtfully organized in an easy-to-read manner, whereas C.F.I.S.D.'s policy reads more like an academic paper. The latter tool makes it harder to find specific details.
The C.F.I.S.D. method places a premium on organization, utilizing four main groupings: selection of learning resources, objectives, criteria, and challenged material. Within these sections the district outlines responsibility for collection management, selection criteria, general criteria, acquisition procedures, intellectual freedom, and weeding.
If one believes that intellectual freedom concerns constitute a central concern for a school policy, it would be hard to find fault with C.F.I.S.D.'s approach. The district does an excellect job of explaining its guiding principles, and outlining its request--both formal and informal--for reconsideration of materials.
The gift policy strikes me as inadequate (it is covered in only one sentence) given the potential importance of this area as a source of library materials. Furthermore, in cases where the community is involved, the library should supply a rationale for all possible decisions.
The lack of information regarding the proportional representation of library media would also appear to be a weakness. Such a section would not only provide librarians with a blueprint for balanced collection building, but enable the community to better undertstand library priorities.
The C.F.I.S.D. policy would be easier to use if special headers were added to the existing text. In addition, the inclusion of community background data would justify in more convincing fashion a wide range of collection policy programs. [adapted from K. Hembree]