5. Disposal of Weeded Items

One of the final things the out-going media specialist did to welcome me to the new job at the end of last year was take me on a “paper-work” tour. Our media program takes care of all purchase orders and the paper work can be daunting. She showed me a notebook of rules, policies and procedures that I would need. I consulted this to learn about our system’s policy on the disposal of weeded items.

I followed all of the directions of our “out processing” of items. I removed all school/library identification marks from all materials and clearly wrote DISCARDED in all capital letters on both end pages as instructed in the local policy. I then removed the items from Destiny and tracked them as weeded.

Our policy states that we should offer the books to local organizations if possible. We have a prison reading program that we offer the books to first. I called and asked if the prison would be interested in the discarded books. The prison was thrilled to get them. They plan to keep some titles for circulation and use those that are “past their prime” in art projects.

List of Titles to be Weeded

List by Weeding Reason

Please right click to open either version in a new window –  PDF version or Excel Version

3. Evaluation of the Topic Section based on Curricular Needs

I also looked at the section based on curricular needs. I reviewed the 6-12 Common Core standards for nonfiction. I read the Georgia Performance Standards and Curriculum Maps to see which titles were relevant to our curriculum. I enlisted the aid of the literacy coach in doing this to ensure that I covered all of the pertinent standards. I managed to keep my collection relevant for my patrons and faculty by retaining titles about sports figures, scientists, mathematicians, historical figures, authors, famous Americans, and world leaders to name a few. I also ensured that I kept titles on multiple reading levels. The literacy coach and I generated lists based off of the Scholastic Common Core Nonfiction List to give teachers by subject so that they could better utilize the media center. We also made of list of titles to order with Striving Reader Grant funds from this list.

Finally, I consulted with a select group of teachers at my school during a break out session of a faculty meeting devoted to our Striving Reader Grant requirements to see if any of the titles I proposed to remove would be useful in their content area. Before speaking with the teachers, I divided the titles into sections to know which teachers to meet with and to ensure an efficient use of my colleagues’ time. This proved to be a very interesting meeting. The process of weeding opened up a wonderful dialogue with my faculty! I was able to share my vision of a 21^st century media program informally and the teachers were able to request titles they would like to have in the media center. We also discussed collaboration ideas that we could accomplish together. Of course, this also led to a great deal of laughter as we reminisced over some of the older titles. One was even marked “Glenwood High School.” This school consolidated into our system a few years ago….in 1959!!!! It was during this session that the English teacher pointed out the last patron to check out one title was none other than my husband way back in 1982, long before I knew him. (I brought that one home to show him and he remembered doing a book report in front of the class.) At the conclusion of the meeting I had a wonderful group of stakeholders ready to assist me and the beginnings of what I hope will be my library advisory board.

2. Evaluation of the Topic Section Based on Use of Data

When I first settled on this area I ran a holdings report and discovered it contained 148 titles. I then ran a circulation report and found out that only 24 titles had circulated within the last year. Only 15 of the titles had circulated within the last two years. Many of the titles had not circulated more than twice since we automated our circulation system in 1994. This section certainly moved to the top of my list of areas to address.  I began the weeding process by using the MUSTY criteria outlined by Allen (2010). I looked for books with misleading/inaccurate information, books that were ugly and worn beyond mending, and books that were trivial and had no discernible value. I then selected those that were superseded by a newer edition or were irrelevant to the needs of my patrons. I was surprised to find how many duplicate titles we had. I also followed the advice of the Media Maven and set a bottom line criteria: books older than 20 years must go! (Ford, 2011, p. 5)

1.Topic Area & Justification for Selection

As Melissa Allen states in Weed ‘Em and Reap it is better to have “books in the trash than trash on your shelves” and books, much like milk, eventually “expire by going past their usefulness” (2010 p. 32). After looking at our entire collection, I chose section 921. This section covers biographies and is one of the few sections not weeded by our retiring librarian in May. One reason may have been that this section was shelved in a back corner that tends to have little traffic. The section was spread across low bookshelves near the floor. Common Core standards require that “75% of all reading in middle and high school be nonfiction” (Common Core State Standards Initiative, 2014). My nonfiction section certainly needs to be appealing to students, not shoved on the bottom shelves in the back corner! As I began to weed this section I also relocated the books to a more functional and higher trafficked area.