Convenience and quality: cloud-based personal research tools and the evolving scholarly record http://www.libraryofthefuture.org/blog/2015/5/6/convenience-and-quality Stephen

10 steps to a value proposition for your library http://proud2know.eu/10valueprop_blog21 "Libraries are embracing new opportunities to help better serve its students, teachers and researchers. The starting point is not always by thoroughly analyzing your current users and analyzing the surrounding contexts together with a multi-disciplinary team that really knows your users. The Business Model Canvas can help you design a really customer-centred service portfolio. It can be used as a great strategic development and communication tool for staff, senior management and other stakeholders. The Business Model Canvas was invented by Alexander Osterwalder & Yves Pigner. For more information on the whole canvas, see http://www.businessmodelgeneration.com/canvas/bmc The Business Model Canvas is an excellent tool to help you describe, analyze and visualize your business model. In other words, such a model can help show you and your team and others how your library creates and delivers value to certain target groups, e.g. Bachelor students, Master students, PhD students, lecturers, Professors, administrators, in various contexts. The Business Model Canvas, Strategyzer.com For this month’s blog, using this model, I will focus on helping you get the key activities, pains and gains of your Customer Segment (1) clear for example, and relate your Value Proposition (2) to this knowledge. With value proposition, I mean the service offer that creates value for your customers or users. Taking a practical example, I will take PhD students as one of the customer segments you could do more for. At this point, try not to think too much about specific service solutions for your PhD students; focus on their pains and gains first. Your customer segment 1.  Select a customer segment / target group that you need to focus on. Hone in on it with a multi-disciplinary team that knows your users well. 2.  Then identify the jobs and tasks your PhD student aims to get done and list them in a customer/ user pie as shown in the diagramme. 3.  Next, consider the pains associated with these tasks and list any obstacles and challenges. 4.  As a following step, identify what they aim to gain through their jobs & tasks. 5.  As a final analysis step, prioritize the jobs, pains and gains of your PhD student. This will help you come to a list that highlights the most important aspects you need to address in your value proposition, i.e. the most valuable service offer you could create for your students in this case. 6.  Verify this knowledge with your PhD students before going any further. Your value proposition 7.  Analyze your value proposition by creating a value map. 8.  Now turn back to your PhD’s pains list, and consider pain relievers. Then rank them in order of importance for your PhD student/supervisor. 9.  Then call on their gains and list the gain creators to create valuable outcomes. Rank these gains also in order of importance for your PhD student/supervisor. 10.  Fill this value map with a list of products and services that will answer the pains and gains of your users. You’re on the road to developing a strong business model for your library.  Other blocks such as what types of customer relationships you have, what channels you have to get your value proposition to your customers, etc. will come in a later blog post. You will need time to further explore other aspects of the Business Model Canvas to create the more complete picture of the context that will influence and impact the success of your services. If you’d like someone from outside to help get your picture clear with your team also as a team-building exercise, drop me a mail: vproudman@proud2know.eu."   This work by Vanessa Proudman is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 3.0 Unported     Stephen

K-12 Report: Assessment Readiness, Money, & Privacy Top Priorities for School Technology Leaders New Findings Revealed at CoSN’s Annual Conference in Atlanta Washington, DC Monday, March 16, 2015 http://cosn.org/about/news/k-12-report-assessment-readiness-money-privacy-top-priorities-school-technology-leaders "Washington, DC (March 16, 2015) - According to CoSN’s (the Consortium for School Networking’s) 3rd annual K-12 IT Leadership Survey, school system technology leaders expressed greatest concern for assessment readiness, funding, and the privacy and security of student data. The new findings, released today at the association’s 2015 Annual Conference in Atlanta, GA, provide K-12 leadership and stakeholders with a clearer sense of education technology challenges and priorities. "Strong IT leadership is integral to the success of schools and districts," said Keith Krueger, CEO of CoSN. "The decisions IT leaders make affect schools and the students they serve far into the future. CoSN conducts this survey to gain a better understanding of the state of the chief technology officer (CTO) and gain deeper insight into who they are. The trends, challenges, and priorities that emerge from the survey results inform CoSN’s activities and help us to better address the changing needs of our membership." Key findings of the report include: For the second straight year, assessment readiness is the number one priority for IT leaders, yet less than 30 percent report they are fully prepared for online assessments. Despite 30 percent reporting budget increases, 54 percent still indicate that they do not have enough money to "meet overall expectations of the school board / district leaders." K-12 IT leaders are increasingly worried about the privacy and security of student data; fifty-seven percent said the issue is more important than it was last year. In 2014, CoSN launched a    Protecting Privacy in Connected Learning initiative to help district technology leaders overcome this growing challenge. Respondents expect their instructional materials to be at least 50 percent digital within the next three years. K-12 IT leaders are not as well compensated as their counterparts in the private sector. Private sector chief technology officers (CTOs) in the bottom 10 percent of the private earnings range still earn more than the average K-12 IT Leader. Female K-12 IT leaders earn less than their male counterparts. Among leaders in the lowest salary range, 65 percent are women. K-12 IT leadership lacks diversity - 88 percent of leaders are white. While that percentage somewhat aligns with the general population of whites in the United States (78 percent), it does not reflect the make-up of the K-12 student body, which is projected this year to have a majority non-white population. Leaders have extensive education technology experience. A remarkable 89 percent have been in education technology for more than six years, 42 percent for more than 10 years, and 31 percent for more than 20. Leaders are very busy. Seventy-four percent are in charge of both instructional and administrative technology. Fifty-eight percent of CTOs / chief information officers / district technology directors report to their superintendents — a best practice identified by CoSN. The K-12 IT Leadership Survey was conducted in partnership with MDR and sponsored by SchoolDude. For more about the survey, including previous year results, please visit: cosn.org/itsurvey2015, #CoSN15. About CoSN  CoSN is the premier professional association for school system technology leaders. The mission of CoSN is to empower educational leaders to leverage technology to realize engaging learning environments. Visit cosn.org or call 866-267-08747 to find out more about CoSN’s focus areas, annual conference and events, advocacy and policy, membership, and the CETL certification exam. - See more at: http://cosn.org/about/news/k-12-report-assessment-readiness-money-privacy-top-priorities-school-technology-leaders#sthash.fBgfIk2X.dpuf" Stephen

Results of South Carolina School Library Impact Study Now Available Via Gary Price at LJ InfoDocket http://www.infodocket.com/2015/05/14/results-of-south-carolina-school-library-impact-study-now-available/ From the South Carolina Association of School Librarians Web Site: The South Carolina School Library Impact Study has been completed. During the SCASL conference in March 2015 a concurrent session was held to inform members of the study results. The findings are available in two reports. Reports Phase 1: How Libraries Transform Schools by Contributing to Student Success: Evidence Linking South Carolina School Libraries and PASS & HSAP Results (79 pages; PDF) http://www.scasl.net/assets/phase%20i.pdf Usable responses from 787 schools to the South Carolina School Library Survey provided data on: Numbers of librarians and library assistants Library expenditures, both total and per student Hours per week librarians spend teaching information literacy (combining reported data on collaborative planning, collaborative teaching, and independent teaching) Circulation of library resources, both total and per student Size of library print and e-book collections Numbers of computers available to students in libraries as well as elsewhere in schools Average number of group visits to libraries per week Phase 2: How Libraries Transform Schools by Contributing to Stdent Success: Evidence Linking South Carolina School Libraries and PASS & HSAP Results, Phase II (52 pages: PDF) https://scasl.memberclicks.net/assets/phase%202.pdf The second phase of the South Carolina study, which is the focus of this second report, is an analysis of data collected in surveys of South Carolina school administrators, teachers, and librarians and test results from the state’s Palmetto Assessment of State Standards (PASS) for elementary and middle school students. While high school educators are included in the overall survey analysis, their sample size was insufficient to examine the relationships between their survey responses and test results from the state’s High School Assessment Program (HSAP) for high school students. Where possible, the accuracy of responding educators’ assessments of library teaching of standards was checked against actual state test results by standard. Notably, this is the first state in which such a study has been conducted where this type of validity check has been possible, owing to the ready availability of standard-level test results. SCASL also released this infographic. Stephen

This is a great resource for anyone posting to their public library’s social media accounts and websites.  Sign up to get access to the esteemed Ben Bizzle’s project to collect and share. Library Facebook Images Dropbox is moving. Sign up at LibraryMarket.com When Ben Bizzle created the "Library Facebook Images Dropbox" to share highly engaging social media images with the library community, he never imagined it would grow to a collection of over 1,000 images, with more than 800 librarian members. Shared Dropbox folders were never designed to be a platform for that level of collaboration. Therefore, the collection has been moved to a far more suitable web based platform, hosted and supported by Library Market. Sign up today and make sure to bookmark the page for quick and easy access. The old Dropbox folder will no longer be available beginning June 1, 2015.

How Social Media is Affecting Our Mental Health https://guncarryinglibrarian.wordpress.com/2015/05/06/social-media-and-your-mental-health/       Stephen

9 Ways the Most Successful People See Life Differently Because success can often be achieved simply by changing your perspective. http://www.inc.com/jeff-haden/9-ways-the-most-successful-people-see-life-differently.html "Today, start changing your perspective on: 1. Failures For most of us, failure isn’t the end of the world. Failure is just the end of an idea or a possibility or a dream. When we fail, we can move on to something else, with luck a little wiser and a lot more likely to succeed. For some, though, failure means going without-or worse, possibly forcing their children to go without. Failure sucks, but never being able to take a chance on your skills, your experience, and your vision is much, much worse. Be thankful you have the opportunity to fail on terms you at least partly set. Many people do not. 2. Criticism People criticize only when they care. While people still care about you or your business, you have the opportunity to do something better, to do something differently, to change their minds-or to just meet in the middle. Apathy is much, much worse. 3. Unhappiness When you’re sad, that means you care, and caring is the mother of changing things for the better. Apathy is much, much worse. Don’t dwell in unhappiness. Use it as fuel to make your life better. 4. Envy Think of people you admire. Think of people who have earned your trust and esteem. Be thankful those people are a part of your life. In fact, don’t just be privately thankful. Tell them how you feel. That will make them grateful for people like you. 5. Decisions You might have so many options and potential choices, both business and personal, that you feel stressed and even overwhelmed. Flip it around: Imagine how it would feel to have few, if any, options. Imagine how it would feel to have few, if any, viable choices. Be thankful you have options-the more, the better. 6. Struggle Not unintentional struggle. Intentional struggle: like choosing to work incredibly hard or to push through a mental or physical barrier or to make sacrifices for the good of the people who rely on you. When you struggle and fight and endure, you not only stretch the limits of what you believe you are capable of, but you also sometimes enter a state of grace that you find only when you strip away what is truly nonessential (which turns out to be most of what you worry about). Struggling helps you learn who you really are-and who you really want to be. 7. Delays Remaining patient is rarely fun, but having to wait can be a good thing. For example, research shows that where vacations are concerned, the biggest boost in happiness comes from planning to get away. And this vacation anticipation boosts happiness for an average of eight weeks. After the vacation, though, happiness levels quickly drop to baseline levels-usually within days. Soon the people who went on a vacation are no happier than the people who didn’t. Be thankful you need to wait-especially for something you really want. The anticipation alone is worth it. Besides, waiting for what you want-not what you need, but what you want-is a luxury only those who are already blessed can afford. 8. Regrets Think about something you wish you had done better. Or handled differently. Or think about something you wish you had done, but for whatever reason, you didn’t. Painful? Sure. And motivating. Use that motivation today. Call a friend you’ve lost touch with. Mend fences with a family member. Be the bigger person and say you’re sorry. Do something you wish you had done. You’ll be thankful you did. 9. Time Because you have the time and resources to do something like reading this post, that means you have time: to improve yourself, to consider new ideas, to try to be a better person, to build better relationships with family and friends. Time is your most important asset and what you should be most thankful for. Time makes everything else possible. Stop doing things that don’t matter and spend your time making your dreams a reality." Stephen

To inform the other half of the audience at library story times: 90% of all new American mothers are millennials, and they buy things differently http://mashable.com/2015/05/14/the-millenial-mom/ Percent of children age 0-17 whose parents are millennials "We estimate that Millennials only recently reached critical mass, with a long runway to go," the report says. Stephen

Digest of Education Statistics: 2013 http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d13/ NCES 2015-011 May 2015 Introduction Foreword List of Figures List of Tables by Chapter Reader’s Guide Chapters Appendixes Return to Digest Introduction "The Introduction provides a brief overview of current trends in American education, highlighting key data that are presented in more detail later in this volume. Topics outlined include the participation of students, teachers, and faculty in U.S. educational institutions; the performance of U.S. elementary/secondary students overall and in comparison to students in other countries; the numbers of high school graduates and postsecondary degrees; and the amounts of expenditures on education at the elementary/secondary and postsecondary levels. In fall 2013, about 75.4 million people were enrolled in American schools and colleges (table 105.10). About 4.5 million people were employed as elementary and secondary school teachers or as college faculty, in full-time equivalents (FTE). Other professional, administrative, and support staff at educational institutions totaled 5.3 million. All data for 2013 in this Introduction are projected, except for data on educational attainment. Some data for other years are projected or estimated as noted. In discussions of historical trends, different time periods and specific years are cited, depending on the timing of important changes as well as the availability of relevant data. Elementary/Secondary Education Enrollment A pattern of annual increases in total public elementary and secondary school enrollment began in 1985, but enrollment stabilized at 49.3 million between 2006 and 2008, before beginning to increase again (table 105.30). Overall, public school enrollment rose 26 percent, from 39.4 million to 49.8 million, between 1985 and 2013. Private school enrollment fluctuated during this period, with the fall 2013 enrollment of 5.1 million being 8 percent lower than the enrollment of 5.6 million in 1985. About 9 percent of elementary and secondary school students were enrolled in private schools in 2013, reflecting a decrease from 12 percent in 1985. In public schools between 1985 and 2013, there was a 30 percent increase in elementary enrollment (prekindergarten through grade 8), compared with an 18 percent increase in secondary enrollment (grades 9 through 12) (table 105.30). Part of the higher growth in public elementary school enrollment resulted from the expansion of prekindergarten enrollment (table 203.10). Between fall 1985 and fall 2011, enrollment in prekindergarten increased 753 percent, while enrollment in other elementary grades (including kindergarten through grade 8 plus ungraded elementary programs) increased 25 percent. The number of children enrolled in prekindergarten increased from 0.2 million in 1985 to 1.3 million in 2011, and the number enrolled in other elementary grades increased from 26.9 million to 33.5 million. Public secondary school enrollment declined 8 percent from 1985 to 1990, but then increased 33 percent from 1990 to 2007, before declining 3 percent from 2007 to 2013 (table 105.30). Between 1990 and 2013, the net increase in public secondary school enrollment was 29 percent, compared with an 18 percent increase in public elementary school enrollment. Over the most recent 10-year period (between 2003 and 2013), public school enrollment rose 2 percent. Elementary enrollment was 3 percent higher in 2013 than in 2003, and secondary enrollment was 2 percent higher. Since the enrollment rates of 5- and 6-year-olds, 7- to 13-year-olds, and 14- to 17-year-olds changed by about 3 or fewer percentage points from 1985 to 2012, increases in public elementary and secondary school enrollment primarily reflect increases in the number of children in these age groups (tables 101.10 and 103.20). For example, the enrollment rate of 7- to 13-year-olds decreased from 99 to 98 percent between 1985 and 2012, but the number of 7- to 13-year-olds increased by 25 percent. Increases in both the enrollment rate of 3- and 4-year-old children (from 39 percent in 1985 to 54 percent in 2012) and the number of children in this age group (from 7.1 million to 8.1 million) also contributed to overall enrollment increases. The National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) projects record levels of public elementary and secondary enrollment from 2013 (49.8 million) through at least 2023 (52.1 million) (table 105.30). For public schools, the projected fall 2013 enrollment is expected to be a new record, and new records are expected every year through 2023, the last year for which NCES enrollment projections have been developed. Public elementary school enrollment (prekindergarten through grade 8) is projected to increase by 5 percent between 2013 and 2023. Public secondary school enrollment (grades 9 through 12) is expected to increase 3 percent between 2013 and 2023. Overall, total public school enrollment is expected to increase 5 percent between 2013 and 2023. Teachers A projected 3.5 million full-time-equivalent (FTE) elementary and secondary school teachers were engaged in classroom instruction in fall 2013 (table 105.40). This number is about 1 percent higher than in fall 2003. The 2013 projected number of FTE teachers includes 3.1 million public school teachers and 0.4 million private school teachers. Both public school enrollment and the number of public school teachers were about 2 percent higher in 2013 than they were in 2003 (table 208.20). In fall 2003, the number of public school pupils per teacher was 15.9, compared with a projected number of 16.0 public school pupils per teacher in fall 2013. The average salary for public school teachers in 2012-13 was $56,383 in current dollars (i.e., dollars that are not adjusted for inflation) (table 211.50). In constant (i.e., inflation-adjusted) dollars, the average salary decreased 1 percent between 1990-91 and 2012-13. Student Performance Most of the student performance data in the Digest are drawn from the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). The NAEP assessments have been conducted using three basic designs: the national main NAEP, state NAEP, and long-term trend NAEP. The national main NAEP and state NAEP provide current information about student performance in subjects including reading, mathematics, science, and writing, while long-term trend NAEP provides information on performance since the early 1970s in reading and mathematics only. Results from long-term trend NAEP are included in the discussion in chapter 2 of the Digest, while the information in this Introduction includes only selected results from the national main and state NAEP. The main NAEP reports current information for the nation and specific geographic regions of the country. The assessment program includes students drawn from both public and private schools and reports results for student achievement at grades 4, 8, and 12. The main NAEP assessments follow the frameworks developed by the National Assessment Governing Board and use the latest advances in assessment methodology. The state NAEP is identical in content to the national main NAEP, but the state NAEP reports information only for public school students. Chapter 2 presents more information on the NAEP designs and methodology, and additional details appear in Appendix A: Guide to Sources. Reading The main NAEP assessment data are reported on a scale of 0 to 500. In 2013, the average reading score for 4th-grade students (222) was not measurably different from the 2011 score, but it was higher than the scores on assessments between 1992 (217) and 2009 (221) (table 221.10). At grade 4, only the average reading scores for White students were higher in 2013 (232) than in both 2011 (231) and 1992 (224). The 2013 scores for Black (206), Hispanic (207), and Asian/Pacific Islander (235) 4th-graders were not measurably different from the 2011 scores, but the 2013 scores were higher than the 1992 scores (192, 197, and 216, respectively). For 8th-grade students, the average reading score in 2013 (268) was more than 2 points higher than in 2011 (265), was 8 points higher than in 1992 (260), and was higher than the average scores in all previous years. At grade 8, the average reading scores for White (276), Black (250), Hispanic (256), and Asian/Pacific Islander (280) students were higher in 2013 than in 2011 and 1992. At grade 12, average scores did not change measurably from 1992 to 2009 for White, Black, Hispanic, Asian/Pacific Islander, or American Indian/Alaska Native students. While there was no measurable change from 2011 to 2013 in the average score for 4th-grade public school students nationally, average scores were higher in 2013 than in 2011 in Colorado, the Department of Defense dependents schools, Indiana, Iowa, Maine, Minnesota, Tennessee, Washington, and the District of Columbia; scores were lower in 2013 than in 2011 in Massachusetts, Montana, and North Dakota (table 221.40). At grade 8, although the average reading score for public school students nationally was 2 points higher in 2013 than in 2011, only 12 states (Arkansas, California, Florida, Hawaii, Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Utah, and Washington) plus the District of Columbia and the Department of Defense dependents schools had higher scores in 2013 than in 2011 (table 221.60). In the other states, scores did not change measurably from 2011 to 2013. Mathematics In 2013, the average NAEP mathematics scores for 4th-grade and 8th-grade students were higher than the average scores in all previous assessment years (table 222.10). The average 4th-grade NAEP mathematics score increased from 213 in 1990 (the first assessment year) to 242 in 2013, an increase of 28 points (based on unrounded scores). During that same period, the average 8th-grade score increased by 22 points, from 263 to 285. At grade 4, the average mathematics scores in 2013 for White (250) and Hispanic students (231) were higher than the scores in both 2011 and 1990. The 2013 score for Black 4th-graders (224) was not measurably different from the 2011 score, but it was higher than the 1990 score. The 2013 score for Asian 4th-graders (259) was also not measurably different from the 2011 score; prior to 2011, separate data on Asians were not available. At grade 8, the average mathematics scores in 2013 for all racial/ethnic groups were not measurably different from the 2011 scores. However, the 2013 scores for White (294), Black (263), and Hispanic (272) 8th-graders were higher than the scores in 1990. NAEP results also permit state-level comparisons of the mathematics achievement of 4th- and 8th-grade students in public schools (tables 222.50 and 222.60). The average mathematics scores for 4th-grade public school students increased from 2011 to 2013 in 14 states (Arizona, Colorado, Delaware, Hawaii, Indiana, Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, New York, North Dakota, Tennessee, Washington, West Virginia, and Wyoming) and the District of Columbia and did not decrease for any states. At grade 8, scores were higher in 2013 than in 2011 in five states (Florida, Hawaii, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, and Tennessee), the District of Columbia, and the Department of Defense dependents schools, and scores decreased in three states (Montana, Oklahoma, and South Dakota). Science NAEP has assessed the science abilities of students in grades 4, 8, and 12 in both public and private schools since 1996. As of 2009, however, NAEP science assessments are based on a new framework, so results from these assessments cannot be compared to results from earlier science assessments. The average eighth-grade science score increased from 150 in 2009 to 152 in 2011 (table 223.10). Average scores for both male and female students were higher in 2011 than in 2009. Male students scored 5 points higher on average than female students in 2011, which was not significantly different from the 4-point gap in 2009. Score gaps between White and Black students and between White and Hispanic students narrowed from 2009 to 2011. The 5-point gain from 2009 to 2011 for Hispanic students was larger than the 1-point gain for White students, narrowing the score gap from 30 points to 27 points. Black students scored 3 points higher in 2011 than in 2009. The 35-point score gap between White and Black students in 2011 was smaller than the 36-point gap in 2009. The average scores of Asian/Pacific Islander and American Indian/Alaska Native students were not significantly different in 2011 from their scores in 2009. International Comparisons The 2011 Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) assessed students’ mathematics and science performance at grade 4 in 45 countries and at grade 8 in 38 countries. In addition to countries, a number of subnational entities—including the public school systems in several U.S. states—also participated in TIMSS as separate education systems. Results for the participating states are included in the discussion in chapter 6 of the Digest, while this Introduction includes only results for the United States and other countries. TIMSS assessments are curriculum based and measure what students have actually learned against the subject matter that is expected to be taught in the participating countries by the end of grades 4 and 8. At both grades, TIMSS scores are reported on a scale of 0 to 1,000, with the scale average set at 500. On the 2011 TIMSS, the average mathematics scores of U.S. 4th-graders (541) and 8th-graders (509) were higher than the scale average (tables 602.20 and 602.30). U.S. 4th-graders scored higher in mathematics, on average, than their counterparts in 37 countries and lower than those in 3 countries (table 602.20). Average mathematics scores in the other 4 countries were not measurably different from the U.S. average. At grade 8, the average U.S. mathematics score was higher than the average scores of students in 27 countries in 2011 and below the average scores of students in 4 countries (table 602.30). Average 8th-grade mathematics scores in the other 6 countries were not measurably different from the U.S. average. The average science scores of both U.S. 4th-graders (544) and U.S. 8th-graders (525) were higher than the TIMSS scale average of 500 in 2011. The average U.S. 4th-grade science score was higher than the average scores of students in 39 countries and lower than those of students in 5 countries. At grade 8, the average U.S. science score was higher than the average scores of students in 28 countries, lower than those in 6 countries, and not measurably different from those in the other 3 countries. The Program for International Student Assessment (PISA), coordinated by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), has measured the performance of 15-year-old students in reading, mathematics, and science literacy every 3 years since 2000. PISA assesses 15-year-old students’ application of reading, mathematics, and science literacy to problems within a real-life context. In 2012, PISA assessed students in the 34 OECD countries as well as in a number of other education systems. Some subnational entities participated as separate education systems, including public school systems in the U.S. states of Connecticut, Florida, and Massachusetts. Results for the participating U.S. states are included in the discussion in chapter 6, while this Introduction includes only results for the United States in comparison with other OECD countries. PISA scores are reported on a scale of 0 to 1,000. On the 2012 PISA assessment, U.S. 15-year-olds’ average score in reading literacy was 498, which was not measurably different from the OECD average of 496 (table 602.50). The average reading literacy score in the United States was lower than the average score in 13 of the 33 other OECD countries, higher than the average score in 10 of the other OECD countries, and not measurably different from the average score in 10 of the OECD countries. In all countries, females outperformed males in reading (table 602.40). The U.S. gender gap in reading (31 points) was smaller than the OECD average gap (38 points) and smaller than the gaps in 14 of the OECD countries. In mathematics literacy, U.S. 15-year-olds’ average score of 481 on the 2012 PISA assessment was lower than the OECD average score of 494 (table 602.60). The average mathematics literacy score in the United States was lower than the average in 21 of the 33 other OECD countries, higher than the average in 5 OECD countries, and not measurably different from the average in 7 OECD countries. In 25 of the OECD countries, males outperformed females in mathematics literacy (table 602.40). In the United States, however, the average score of males (484) was not measurably different from that of females (479). In science literacy, U.S. 15-year-olds’ average score of 497 was not measurably different from the OECD average score of 501 (table 602.70). The average science literacy score in the United States was lower than the average in 15 OECD countries, higher than the average in 8 OECD countries, and not measurably different from the average in 10 OECD countries. The Progress in International Reading Literacy Study (PIRLS) measures the reading knowledge and skills of 4th-graders over time. On the 2011 PIRLS, U.S. 4th-graders had an average reading literacy score of 556 (table 602.10). The U.S. average score in 2011 was 14 points higher than in 2001 and 16 points higher than in 2006. In all three assessment years, the U.S. average score was higher than the PIRLS scale average. (PIRLS scores are reported on a scale from 0 to 1,000, with the scale average set at 500.) In 2011, PIRLS assessed 4th-grade reading literacy in 40 countries. The average reading literacy score of 4th-graders in the United States was higher than the average score in 33 of the 39 other participating countries, lower than the average score in 3 countries, and not measurably different from the average in the remaining 3 countries. High School Graduates and Dropouts About 3,323,000 high school students are expected to graduate during the 2014-15 school year (table 219.10), including about 3,031,000 public school graduates and 291,000 private school graduates. High school graduates include only recipients of diplomas, not recipients of equivalency credentials. The number of high school graduates projected for 2014-15 is lower than the record high in 2011-12, but exceeds the baby boom era’s high point in 1975-76, when 3,142,000 students earned diplomas. In 2011-12, an estimated 80.8 percent of public high school students graduated on time—that is, received a diploma 4 years after beginning their freshman year (table 219.35). The number of General Educational Development (GED) credentials issued by the states to GED test passers rose from 330,000 in 1977 to 487,000 in 2000 (table 219.60). A record number of 648,000 GED credentials were issued in 2001. In 2002, there were revisions to the GED test and to the data reporting procedures. In 2001, test takers were required to successfully complete all five components of the GED or else begin the five-part series again with the new test that was introduced in 2002. Prior to 2002, reporting was based on summary data from the states on the number of GED credentials issued. As of 2002, reporting has been based on individual GED candidate- and test-level records collected by the GED Testing Service. Between 2002 and 2012, the number of persons passing the GED tests increased by 22 percent, from 330,000 to 401,000.1 The percentage of dropouts among 16- to 24-year-olds has decreased over the past two decades. This percentage, known as the status dropout rate, includes all people in the 16- to 24-year-old age group who are not enrolled in school and who have not completed a high school program, regardless of when they left school. (People who left school but went on to receive a GED credential are not treated as dropouts in this measure.) Between 1990 and 2012, the status dropout rate declined from 12.1 percent to 6.6 percent (table 219.70). Although the status dropout rate declined for both Blacks and Hispanics during this period, their rates in 2012 (7.5 and 12.7 percent, respectively) remained higher than the rate for Whites (4.3 percent). This measure is based on the civilian noninstitutionalized population, which excludes people in prisons, people in the military, and other people not living in households. Postsecondary Education College Enrollment College enrollment was 20.6 million in fall 2012, which was about 2 percent lower than the record enrollment in fall 2010 (table 105.30). College enrollment is expected to set new records from fall 2015 through fall 2023. Between fall 2012 and fall 2023, enrollment is expected to increase by 15 percent. Despite decreases in the size of the traditional college-age population (18 to 24 years old) during the late 1980s and early 1990s, total enrollment increased during this period (tables 101.10 and 105.30). The traditional college-age population rose 10 percent between 2002 and 2012, and total college enrollment increased 24 percent during the same period. Between 2002 and 2012, the number of full-time students increased by 28 percent, compared with a 19 percent increase in part-time students (table 303.10). During the same time period, the number of males enrolled increased 24 percent, and the number of females enrolled increased 25 percent. Faculty In fall 2011, degree-granting institutions—defined as postsecondary institutions that grant an associate’s or higher degree and are eligible for Title IV federal financial aid programs—employed 1.5 million faculty members, including 0.8 million full-time and 0.8 million part-time faculty (table 314.30). In addition, degree-granting institutions employed 0.4 million graduate assistants. Postsecondary Degrees During the 2013-14 academic year, postsecondary degrees are projected to number 1,031,000 associate’s degrees; 1,844,000 bachelor’s degrees; 791,000 master’s degrees; and 177,000 doctor’s degrees (table 318.10). The doctor’s degree total includes most degrees formerly classified as first-professional, such as M.D., D.D.S., and law degrees. Between 2001-02 and 2011-12 (the last year of actual data), the number of degrees conferred increased at all levels. The number of associate’s degrees was 71 percent higher in 2011-10 than in 2001-02, the number of bachelor’s degrees was 39 percent higher, the number of master’s degrees was 55 percent higher, and the number of doctor’s degrees was 42 percent higher. Between 2001-02 and 2011-12, the number of bachelor’s degrees awarded to males increased 39 percent, while the number of bachelor’s degrees awarded to females increased 38 percent. Females earned 57 percent of all bachelor’s degrees in 2011-12, the same percentage as in 2001-02. Between 2001-02 and 2011-12, the number of White students earning bachelor’s degrees increased 26 percent, compared with the larger increases of 59 percent for Black students, 104 percent for Hispanic students, and 52 percent for Asian/Pacific Islander students (table 322.20). The number of American Indian/Alaska Native students earning bachelor’s degrees increased 25 percent over the same period. In 2011-12, White students earned 70 percent of all bachelor’s degrees awarded (vs. 77 percent in 2001-02), Black students earned 11 percent (vs. 9 percent in 2001-02), Hispanic students earned 10 percent (vs. 7 percent in 2001-02), and Asian/Pacific Islander students earned about 7 percent (increasing their share of the degrees from 6.6 percent in 2001-02 to 7.3 percent in 2011-12). American Indian/Alaska Native students earned about 1 percent of the degrees in both years. Undergraduate Prices For the 2012-13 academic year, annual prices for undergraduate tuition, room, and board were estimated to be $15,022 at public institutions, $39,173 at private nonprofit institutions, and $23,158 at private for-profit institutions (table 330.10). Between 2002-03 and 2012-13, prices for undergraduate tuition, room, and board at public institutions rose 39 percent, and prices at private nonprofit institutions rose 27 percent, after adjustment for inflation. Prices for total tuition, room, and board at private for-profit institutions decreased 7 percent between 2002-03 and 2012-13. Educational Attainment The U.S. Census Bureau collects annual statistics on the educational attainment of the population. Between 2003 and 2013, the percentage of the adult population 25 years of age and over who had completed high school rose from 85 percent to 88 percent, and the percentage of adults with a bachelor’s degree increased from 27 percent to 32 percent (table 104.10). High school completers include those people who graduated from high school with a diploma, as well as those who completed high school through equivalency programs. The percentage of young adults (25- to 29-year-olds) who had completed high school increased from 87 percent in 2003 to 90 percent in 2013 (table 104.20). The percentage of young adults who had completed a bachelor’s degree increased from 28 percent in 2003 to 34 percent in 2013. Education Expenditures Expenditures for public and private education, from prekindergarten through graduate school (excluding postsecondary schools not awarding associate’s or higher degrees), are estimated at $1.2 trillion for 2012-13 (table 106.10). Expenditures of elementary and secondary schools are expected to total $669 billion, while those of degree-granting postsecondary institutions are expected to total $496 billion. Total expenditures for education are expected to amount to 7.2 percent of the gross domestic product in 2012-13, about the same as in 2002-03, but lower than the percentage in 2009-10 (7.6 percent). 1 Information on changes in GED test series and reporting is based on the 2003 edition of Who Passed the GED Tests?, by the GED Testing Service of the American Council on Education, as well as communication with staff of the GED Testing Service." Stephen

INFOGRAPHIC: Explosive Active User Growth for Pinterest, Tumblr http://www.adweek.com/socialtimes/infographic-gwi-pinterest-tumblr/620098 Stephen

The 22 Stages Of Visiting Your Public Library http://www.buzzfeed.com/wallingfordlibrary/the-22-stages-of-visiting-your-public-library-16t05 Charming… Stephen

Thomson Reuters Releases 2015 Academic Reputation Survey Findings http://www.infodocket.com/2015/05/12/thomson-reuters-releases-2015-academic-reputation-survey-findings/ Via Gary Price at LJ InfoDocket "The 2015 report was released earlier today and is titled, Exploring Scholarly Trends and Shifts Impacting the Academic Reputation of the World’s Leading Universities. The full text is linked below. About the Report (via TR) This robust analysis of survey results over a five-year period (2010-2014) identifies the key trends and shifts across the global research landscape that influence an institution’s academic standing. Exploring Scholarly Trends and Shifts Impacting the Academic Reputation of the World’s Leading Universities is fueled by the unique and comprehensive results of Thomson Reuters Academic Reputation Surveys (2010-2014), including the insights of 65,000 academics and is representative of 6,500 universities and 105 areas of study. Highlights The study also explores sharp regional differences and global perceptions that do not always align with an institution’s research output or strengths. For example, while responses differ within specific disciplines, participants have generally tended to identify a small number of well-recognized universities as the leaders across six major subject areas, including arts and humanities, medicine and health, life sciences, physical sciences, engineering and technology and social sciences. While the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) was not regarded as highly in medicine and health, as it was within other major disciplines, this area of study was still listed within its subject mix despite the institution not having a school of medicine. This is reflective of the interdisciplinary nature of science. Some of the study’s key findings include: Harvard University is the overall global leader-of-the-pack over the five-year period New York University (NYU) and King’s College London experienced the greatest upswing in academic reputation Multidisciplinary universities tend to have a stronger general reputation than specialty institutions, but a granular approach to a subject can lead to reputational excellence within that discipline Regional perspectives often contrast with global perception With some exceptions, the volume of a university’s research generally correlates with reputation, including papers co-authored with researchers in other regions The report is organized into the following sections: Most Improved Universities Leading Universities By Subject Area Regional Leaders In Academic Reputation The report also includes four case studies: Harvard University: A Detailed Breakdown by Subject Areas Case Leading Universities in Business Studies University of Sao Paulo: Regional Versus Global Perception and Research Output Versus Reputation University of Melbourne: Reputation Versus Publication Direct to Full Text Report (11 pages; PDF)" http://researchanalytics.thomsonreuters.com/m/pdfs/scholarly_trends Stephen

The Definition Of Hell For Each Myers-Briggs Personality Type They say that one man’s heaven is another man’s hell and that couldn’t be truer when it comes to the sixteen Myers-Briggs Personality Types. Each one is inspired, enraged and absolutely tortured by something slightly different. Here’s the destiny that would psychologically destroy each Myers-Briggs Personality type. http://thoughtcatalog.com/heidi-priebe/2015/05/the-definition-of-hell-for-each-myers-briggs-personality-type/ "ESTJ - An incredibly impractical person is put in charge of all of your major life decisions. You have to do whatever they say and are powerless to argue or reason with them. INFP - Your deepest thoughts and feelings are exposed to a large audience and everyone thinks that you’re pathetic and unoriginal. INTJ - Every time you open your mouth to say something intelligent, something entirely idiotic comes out instead. ESFJ - Someone you love is in dire need of practical help and you can’t give it to them. Worse yet, they think you’re refusing to help them out of pettiness and they’re mad at you. ESFP - You are stuck in a room by yourself for the rest of eternity. ISTP - The Zombie apocalypse happens but you’re suddenly the world’s weakest fighter and must depend solely on your loved ones to keep you alive. ENFP - Every minute of the rest of your life has been scheduled for you - and it’s a long series of arbitrary, solitary tasks. ISFP - You have to listen to rude people criticizing your personal choices, your appearance and your art form all day long. Nobody cares that they’re hurting your feelings. For A New Myers-Briggs Article In Your News Feed Every Day, Follow Heidi On Facebook ENFJ - Your loved ones are in dire need of guidance but every piece of advice you gives them inadvertently makes things worse for them. ISFJ - Everyone you love is yelling at each other and it’s all your fault. ISTJ - You are expected to complete a highly esteemed project with absolutely no guidance as to what’s expected of you. INFJ - You are eternally damned to working for a morally corrupt company that aims to exploit the weak and generally degrade conditions for all of society. ESTP - You are completely paralyzed, lacking even the ability to speak. ENTP - Freedom of speech is revoked from the constitution. Voicing your opinion in any way is now illegal. INTP - You are eternally condemned to researching an extremely vapid topic using wildly inaccurate methods, mostly involving interviewing people who have no idea what they’re talking about. ENTJ - Somebody is wrong, and they’re directing a large group of people! You can’t do anything about it and will have to obey whatever inefficient policies they decide to implement." Stephen

How Much Paper Would It Take to Print the Internet? http://mentalfloss.com/article/63395/how-much-paper-would-it-take-print-internet "George Harwood and Evangeline Walker, students at the U.K.’s University of Leicester, estimate that the entire Internet could be fit onto somewhere between 68.1 billion and 136 billion pages of A4 paper, if each web page could be printed onto 15 to 30 paper pages. Their research is published in the student-run Journal of Interdisciplinary Science Topics." Stephen

New Market Research: 94 Million iPhones in Use in the U.S. http://www.infodocket.com/2015/05/18/new-market-research-94-million-iphones-in-use-in-the-u-s/ Via Gary Price at LJ InfoDocket "From Consumer Intelligence Research Partners (CIRP): CIRP finds that as of the end of the March 2015 quarter, 94 million iPhones were in use in the US, including 25 million iPhone 6 and 13 million iPhone 6 Plus models. [Clip] By analyzing data on iPhone buyers, their new model selection, and their prior phones, and overlaying Apple iPhone sales data adjusted to the US market, CIRP estimates the number and model of iPhones in use each quarter "There are still 8 million iPhone 4S phones, dating back to 2011, in use," continued [Joshua] Lowitz [from CIRP]. "While they are ripe for upgrade, many of these consumers have owned their iPhone 4S for only a fraction of its three and a half years on the market. The size of this upgrade cohort, relative to the number of new iPhone 6 and 6 Plus units sold, suggests that the coming quarters may prove challenging for Apple in the US." CIRP bases its findings on its March 2015 survey of US Apple customers. CIRP samples 500 customers that purchased an Apple product (iPhone, iPad, or Mac computer) in the preceding quarter. Read the Complete Brief, Includes Chart: " Installed Based of iPhones by Model"" http://files.ctctcdn.com/150f9af2201/7c216f22-f310-4b85-8a23-5a2efdd0f574.pdf Stephen

Social Media: The Best Marketer For Your Events (INFOGRAPHIC) http://www.adweek.com/socialtimes/social-media-the-best-marketer-for-your-events-infographic/620457 Stephen

Mary Meeker’s Annual "Internet Trends" Report Now Available Online Via Gary Price at LJ InfoDocket http://www.kpcb.com/internet-trends "Mary Meeker, a highly respected analyst and vice-president at Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers, a Silicon Valley venture capital firm, delivers her "Internet Trends" presentation/report at a major industry conference each year. Meeker’s slides are linked and are LOADED with statistics along with her views on current trends and where we are headed. Important, interesting, and useful material. 2015 Internet Trends Report from Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers Direct to Internet Trends 2015 Report (197 Slides) ||| PDF Version of Report Meeker’s "trends" presentations back to 2001 are available by scrolling to the bottom of this page. Coverage Mary Meeker: Internet user growth slowing, drone growth is not (via USA Today)"

INFOGRAPHIC: Hashing Out Hashtags http://www.adweek.com/socialtimes/infographic-surepayroll-hashtags/619169 Stephen

The State of Web Analytics: Infographic http://sketchee.com/blog/the-state-of-web-analytics-infographic.html Stephen

Is this you? "What are the common traits of highly intelligent people? Common traits may include: Very individualistic Free thinker/non-conforming/averse to authority Heightened sensitivity to both external and internal stimulus Rich inner world (the capacity to be able to generate experiences internally using experience and information synthesized from the outer world). Heightened sense of perception (to be able to come up with effective practical solutions to problems after discovering the root of the issue). Intuitive (Being able to almost feel what someone is thinking/feeling and able to almost predict what is going to happen next in any particular situation) Being able to read very deeply into body language. Very analytical/observing; being able to point out the nuances in everyday living situations. Tend to have at least 1 parent or person in their family who are also pretty intelligent. Thrives on intellectual conversations/complexities (a love for turning the complex into simple and being able to extract the complexity out of what others view as simple). Likes to learn at a very fast pace and are able to demonstrate mental abilities well beyond one’s physical age. These are just a few of the common traits among highly gifted individuals, but the list can go on and on. When someone is highly intelligent, it is often pretty damn obvious." Stephen

Wendy Newman, senior fellow and lecturer at the Faculty of Information is retiring at the end of June.  Wendy has made tremendous contributions to the Canadian library community in various leadership roles for over 30 years. In honour of her dedication to public librarianship, efforts are underway to establish a scholarship in her name to support emerging library leaders.  In keeping with her passion, the Wendy Newman Library Leadership Award will help build leadership capacity in the library sector by enabling an alumni of the iSchool to pursue professional development opportunities at some of the best programs in the industry, including the iSchool’s Public Library Leadership Fellows Program, which Wendy helped to form. The goal is to establish a $50,000 endowed award. Wendy Newman’s family has generously agreed to match donations contributed a scholarship fund up to $25,000.  The attached letter from Wendy explains why they have made this amazing commitment.  We invite you to help create this award in Wendy’s honour. Many thanks to those of you who have already given.  If you have yet to do so, donations can be made via the U of T website at:   https://donate.utoronto.ca/give/show/13. Any questions about the award or this campaign, can be directed to: Audrey M. Johnson Senior Development Officer | Faculty of Information Phone:  416-978-3934 Email:  am.johnson@utoronto.ca Thank you for your support! Wendy Newman Letter     Stephen

50 Jobs for Kids Ages 12-17 http://mediaspecialistsguide.blogspot.ca/2015/05/updated-50-jobs-for-kids-ages-12-17.html "This is an updated list (12 more added from last year) of jobs for kids between the ages of 12-17. With a little creativity (and a bit of that entrepreneurial spirit) there are many things your students can do to earn extra money." - See more at: http://mediaspecialistsguide.blogspot.ca/2015/05/updated-50-jobs-for-kids-ages-12-17.html#sthash.gwsydLkR.dpuf Stephen

INFOGRAPHIC: Event Promotion and Social Media Go Hand-in-Hand http://www.adweek.com/socialtimes/infographic-maximillion-events/620426 Stephen

11 common tech myths you should stop believing today Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/most-common-tech-myths-2015-5?op=1#ixzz3aafyl3YX "Is it bad to charge your phone overnight? What about charging an iPhone with an iPad adapter? Despite how often we use devices like smartphones and laptops, we have plenty of questions about how they work. And with so much information out there — not all of it true — it’s hard to know if we’re treating our electronics properly. We’re here to debunk some of the biggest misconceptions out there." Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/most-common-tech-myths-2015-5?op=1#ixzz3aagMcn94 Stephen