Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Library Plan topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Greendale librarians present 2025–27 school library plan, highlight staffing and collection goals
Summary
Two certified school librarians told the Greendale School Board they built a 2025–27 library plan to meet DPI requirements, address staffing limits (two librarians covering five buildings), expand collections and increase collaboration with teachers; the plan will be brought to the board for approval at the next meeting.
Danielle Brannon, the district’s secondary school librarian, and Tara Jordan, the elementary school librarian, presented the Greendale School District’s 2025–27 library plan during the April board meeting. The presentation laid out the district’s statutory and policy obligations, staffing model, collection data, needs assessment and two multi-year goals for improving collections and increasing collaboration between librarians and staff.
The librarians told the board that Wisconsin administrative code and board policy require districts to have a long-range library plan and designated library personnel. “Every school district in Wisconsin is required to have a library plan on file,” Danielle Brannon said, explaining the legal foundation for the plan. The presentation summarized five needs identified through surveys of students, staff and community members, including more staff time in each building, increased non–common school fund budgets at elementary schools, and improved understanding of library services among teachers and families.
Staffing and service delivery were central to the presentation. Brannon and Jordan described a model in which two certified librarians serve five district buildings with paraprofessional support at elementary sites; at the high school they said staffing is limited and relies on campus staff stepping in. Tara Jordan described the elementary schedule as a weekly, guaranteed 20-minute class visit at each school and said the librarians also deliver lessons and collaborate with teachers on request. Brannon and Jordan provided collection figures for the elementary buildings (reported in the presentation as roughly 13,000 items at Canterbury, 11,000 at College Park and 14,000 at Highland View) and emphasized that students also use district subscriptions to ebooks, audiobooks and databases such as BadgerLink.
The plan’s two stated goals spell out measurable work through 2027–28: (1) analyze and update collections to increase diversity of formats, themes and reading levels; and (2) increase collaboration between librarians and staff, measured by surveys and engagement metrics and reported annually in a library report. The presenters said they will focus this year on auditing collections and the next year on promotion, then reflect and reassess in the third year.
On funding, the librarians explained how the common school fund is the primary statewide source for school library purchases but said its rules limit allowable expenditures to materials, databases and library-related hardware—not personnel. “The common school fund is very robust,” Brannon said, “but again, that can’t be spent on people.” Board members praised the plan’s practical approach and asked about funding adequacy; one trustee noted state mandates don’t always carry commensurate funding, and the presenters acknowledged the district must use a mix of funding to support staffing and programming.
The district indicated the library plan will be brought back for formal approval at the next board meeting. The presentation materials, collection numbers and the library plan itself were included in the board packet.
The board did not take a vote on the plan that night; administration said it will appear on the agenda for the next meeting for formal action.
