Prism: the Office for Accreditation newsletter, Spring 2018

prism masthead

Spring 2018, Volume 26, Number 1  •  ISSN 1066-7873  •  Kerri Price, editor
Comments, questions, and suggestions are welcomed. Please contact us at

In this issue: See also:
ALA accreditation at a glance Prism Index - from fall 2003 through fall 2017
News and announcements Prism Archive - from fall 2003 through fall 2017
COA announces 2018 Midwinter Meeting accreditation actions Best of Prism - selected articles from previous issues
From the Director: Outlook
From the COA Chair: Perspective
Spotlight on process and policy
In profile: A Q&A with an accreditation star
External Review Panelists acknowledged
AASL-CAEP recognition news


Accreditation at a glance

65 ALA-accredited programs
61 institutions with ALA-accredited programs
33 U.S. states (including Washington, DC, and Puerto Rico) with ALA-accredited programs
5 Canadian provinces with ALA-accredited programs
34 ALA-accredited programs offering 100% online programs †
1 programs with candidacy status
15,445 total students enrolled in ALA-accredited programs in fall 2016 *
5,737 graduates of ALA-accredited programs during the 2015-2016 academic year *

† As identified by the programs
* As reported by programs to the Office for Accreditation. The 2016-2017 data is under review.


News and announcements

External Review Panel training at 2018 ALA Annual Conference in New Orleans

Date: Friday, June 22, 2018
Time: 8:00am – 12:00noon
Location: Le Meridien Hotel (333 Poydras Street), Esplanade Ballroom 2

New and experienced External Review Panelist (ERP) pool members are invited and encouraged to attend a training session on the role of ERP members in the ALA accreditation process. Participation in training is a prerequisite for serving on a review panel.

Participants will learn about the comprehensive review process, hear from experienced panelists and members of the Committee on Accreditation, and work in groups to analyze a sample Self-Study. This year’s training will focus on Standard III (Faculty) of the 2015 ALA Standards for Accreditation. Currently assigned ERPs are especially encouraged to attend.

Program heads who want to learn more about the accreditation process, the site visit, and the role of the ERP in the review are welcome to attend as observers. If you’re interested in attending, please RSVP and indicate that you’d like to observe the session.

Please RSVP to Kerri Price,, by June 1, 2018, and include “ERP Training” in the subject line. Registration is limited and is on a first-come, first-served basis.

New external review panelists sought

The Office for Accreditation seeks experienced library and information professionals to participate in the accreditation process as external review panelists. We are particularly in need of librarians and educators with specializations and experience in the following areas:

  • Archives and records management
  • Cultural heritage information management
  • Curricular review and redesign
  • Distance education
  • School librarianship
  • Public librarianship
  • Information science
  • Information technology
  • LIS graduate program administration
  • Service to diverse populations
  • French language skills
  • Spanish language skills

Find out more about what’s involved in serving on an external review panel on the Resources for external review panelists webpage. If you are interested and meet the qualifications, please complete the External Review Panel Member Information Form, and plan to attend the training session on Friday, June 22 at the 2018 ALA Annual Conference in New Orleans.

If you know someone who might be interested in serving as an external review panelist, please encourage him/her to apply, or send a recommendation to

COA open session at 2018 ALA Annual Conference in New Orleans

Date: Sunday, June 24, 2018
Time: 4:30pm—5:30pm
Location: Le Meridien Hotel (333 Poydras Street), Marigny 1

Highlighted will be aspects of the Standards most frequently cited for follow-up reporting and the expanded public disclosure requirements.

AASL-CAEP program review training at 2018 ALA Annual Conference in New Orleans

Date: Friday, June 22, 2018
Time: 12:00noon - 4:00pm
Location: Morial Convention Center, Room 222

New and experienced reviewers and program report writers are encouraged to attend this session to learn about the AASL-CAEP program review process, the 2010 ALA/AASL Standards for Initial Preparation of School Librarians (and an update on the Standards revision process), report preparation/review, and appropriate assessments.

So that we have sufficient training materials on hand, please RSVP to Kerri Price, by June 1, 2018, and include “AASL-CAEP training” in the subject line.

Prospective reviewers can find out more about the AASL-CAEP program review process at

AASL-CAEP Coordinating Committee meeting at 2018 ALA Annual Conference in New Orleans

Date: Friday, June 22, 2018
Time: 8:30am – 10:00am
Location: Morial Convention Center, Room 222

Committee members are strongly encouraged to attend. Those interested in AASL-CAEP program review and the Standards for Initial Preparation of School Librarians (currently undergoing revision) are also encouraged to attend.

New index for Prism

The Office developed an index (both subject and author) for Prism that can be accessed from the Prism homepage. Indexing is complete for the fall 2003 through the fall 2017 issues. The spring 2018 issue will be indexed by May 1, 2018.

New standards for AASL-CAEP school librarianship education program review

The American Association of School Librarians (AASL), in conjunction with the Council for the Accreditation of Educator Preparation (CAEP), has formed a working group to prepare the new standards for the preparation of school librarians. These standards will replace the current standards - ALA/AASL Standards for Initial Preparation of School Librarians (2010) - and are aligned with the new AASL National School Library Standards for Learners, School Librarians, and School Libraries.

The first draft of the standards was presented for feedback at the AASL National Conference in November 2017, and then again at the January 2018 meeting of the AASL Educators for School Librarians Section (ESLS). A final draft will be presented to the AASL Board of Directors in June 2018 at the ALA Annual Conference in New Orleans.

The themes of the draft standards are:

  • The Learner and Learning: how the library can ensure that all learners are prepared for college, career, and life.
  • Instructional Practice: the responsibility of the school librarian to design and deliver instruction.
  • Knowledge and Application of Content: presenting content of school librarianship based on multiple forms of literacy.
  • Organization and Access: outlining the management and organizational role of school librarians.
  • Leadership, Advocacy, and Professional Responsibility: focusing on the ongoing development of the librarian.

The standards, along with supporting explanations, alignment to other national standards, sample assessments and rubrics, and other supporting materials will be presented to the AASL Board of Directors in June 2018 and then to CAEP for final approval.


COA announces accreditation actions

The Committee on Accreditation (COA) of the American Library Association (ALA) has announced the following accreditation decisions.

At the COA’s meeting at the 2018 ALA Midwinter Meeting:

The May 2017 policy revision to section I.15 (Accreditation decisions) of Accreditation Process, Policies, and Procedures (AP3) has been implemented to enhance public disclosure and goes into effect with the 2018 accreditation decisions. The policy states that “any standard on which a program has follow-up reporting is made public by the Office for Accreditation as a part of the usual means (e.g., press release, Accreditation Decisions and Actions Taken reports, and Prism).”

Continued Accreditation status was granted to the following programs, with the next comprehensive review visit scheduled to take place in fall 2024:

  • Master of Science in Library and Information Science at Drexel University. Standards cited for follow-up reporting: II.1, II.2.1, II.3, III.10, IV.1, IV.4, IV.5, IV.5.1 through IV.5.6, V.3.
  • Master of Science in Library and Information Science at Simmons College. Standard cited for follow-up reporting: V.3.
  • Master of Library and Information Science at St. Catherine University. No Standards cited for follow-up reporting.
  • Master of Library and Information Science at the University of Wisconsin – Milwaukee. Standards cited for follow-up reporting: I.1.4, I.5, III.1, IV.1, V.3, and V.7.

Information on accreditation statuses and types of reviews can be found in Section I of Accreditation Process, Policies and Procedures (AP3), fourth edition.

The following institutions have programs that are being visited in the spring 2018 academic term. The accreditation decisions will be made by the COA at its meeting at the 2018 ALA Annual Conference in New Orleans.

  • Clarion University of Pennsylvania
  • University of Denver
  • University of Kentucky
  • University of North Carolina at Greensboro
  • University of Rhode Island
  • University of Western Ontario

The following institutions have programs that are being visited in the fall 2018 academic term. The accreditation decisions will be made by the COA at its meeting at the 2019 ALA Midwinter Meeting in Seattle.

  • University of California, Los Angeles
  • University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
  • Kent State University
  • Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey
  • St. John's University

ALA accreditation indicates that the program meets or exceeds the Standards for Accreditation of Master’s Programs in Library and Information Studies, established by the COA and approved by ALA Council. The accreditation process involves rigorous, ongoing self-evaluation by the program and verification of evidence through an external review. The COA evaluates each program for compliance with the Standards, which address systematic planning; curriculum; faculty; students; administration, finances, and resources.

A complete list of programs and degrees accredited by ALA can be found online. Individuals who would like more information about a particular program should contact the program.

The ALA COA is a leading force in accreditation, having evaluated educational programs to prepare librarians since 1924. The Council for Higher Education Accreditation (CHEA) recognizes the ALA COA as the authority for assessing the quality of education offered by graduate programs in the field of library and information studies.


From the Director: OUTLOOK

By Karen L. O'Brien, Director, ALA Office for Accreditation

Renewal and Preparation

This spring we welcome the newest member of the Committee on Accreditation (COA): Karen Snow, Associate Professor and Director of the Doctoral Program, Dominican University. New members who will attend their first COA meeting this fall are: Eric Albright, Director of the Hirsh Health Sciences Library at Tufts University and Linda C. Smith, Professor and Associate Dean for Academic Programs at the School of Information Sciences at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

COA public member David Weigle, Assistant Dean for Graduate Medical Education at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, has agreed to continue for a second two-year term. COA member Loretta Parham, CEO and Library Director at the Atlanta University Center Woodruff Library, has been appointed to chair COA after conclusion of the ALA Annual Conference in New Orleans.

While Office for Accreditation staff keep a focus on ensuring a smooth-running process and sensible application of procedure and policies, we are working to improve the accreditation experience for school and program personnel and volunteers (as in driving while performing a tune-up.) Virtual training is being developed and plans are in motion to work with the Association for Library and Information Science Education (ALISE) on a webinar related to the external review process.

Preparations for launching the accreditation management software (AMS) platform Jura are underway. The first priority is preparing the template for the self-study, getting the LIS program contacts and the Standards loaded for launch. The system is designed to be intuitive with prompts built in to guide the user. The system affords the opportunity to bring the Standards and Accreditation Process, Policies and Procedures (AP3) together. Instructions for addressing each standard element are provided, along with key guiding questions.

Programs with a visit scheduled for spring 2019, which are beginning to develop the self-study, will be invited to use the system. Those at the COA open session at the 2017 ALA Annual Conference in Chicago saw a Jura system demonstration, which highlighted the self-study template editing tools and the capacity to include web links in text and the means of uploading documents for evidence. Program personnel who attended the training for chairing external review panels at the 2018 ALA Midwinter Meeting in Denver had some great questions for me about the system. Meanwhile, as we get the system ready for launch, program personnel with visits in the near term have been invited to participate in an in-person workshop on developing the self-study at the 2018 ALA Annual Conference.

We’re also eager to move reviewer and COA communications to the new ALA Connect once pilot testing ends and the launch is successful. This capacity will open up opportunities to exchange more frequently on the fundamentals of the review process as it evolves with program needs.

As always, program personnel are encouraged to attend reviewer training at the 2018 ALA Annual Conference to participate either as a reviewer trainee (highly recommended - apply by submitting the application form and a current CV or resume) or to observe and talk with me and other program personnel also observing during the small group portions of the training. Reserve your seat by contacting Kerri Price,, by June 1, 2018, and include “ERP Training” in the subject line. Registration is limited and is on a first-come, first-served basis.

You are invited to get in touch with me by calling 312-280-2434 or writing to me at I hope to see you in New Orleans!



By Terry Weech, 2017-18 Chair, Committee on Accreditation, and Associate Professor, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

By any other name: The relevance of the library in the future of LIS education

As noted in my fall 2017 “From the COA Chair” column, the role of the Committee on Accreditation (COA) is to provide the process of accrediting programs in library and information studies (LIS) while acknowledging the central role of the COA accreditation process to be the recognition of librarianship as a distinct and autonomous profession. The 2015 Standards for Accreditation of Master's Programs in Library and Information Studies specify in the “Scope of the Standards” section of the introduction that “library and information studies” denotes a field of professional practice and associated areas of study and research, regardless of a degree’s name (3). In this column I would like to discuss some of the impact the iSchool movement may have had on some of the issues related to library and information studies as reflected in recent literature.

In a 2016 editorial in College and Research Libraries entitled “What’s in a Name,” Carol Tilley and Scott Walter discuss the impact of dropping the word “library” from the name of former library schools and the rise of the distinction between L-Schools and iSchools in the context of professional education. Specifically, they note five schools that formerly had “library” in the school name but have since eliminated it (Tilley and Walter 2016). In 2018, we can add additional schools who have dropped “library” from their name, but it is not just the elimination of “library” from the school name that is at issue. Tilley and Walter, as well as others, have noted the trend of more professional courses being taught by contingent or adjunct and other non-tenure track faculty. While this pattern of employment in higher education may not be unique to LIS programs, it should be a concern if in the future we see a pattern where the majority of courses in an ALA-accredited program are being taught by non-tenure track faculty and more of the promotions and tenure positions go to faculty doing research and teaching in other degree programs.

Also in 2016, Ed Cortez, 2016-2017 Chair of the ALA Committee on Education, wrote an editorial in the Journal of Education for Library and Information Science entitled “Teaching for the Future, Not the Past” (Cortez 2016). In his conclusion, Cortez states that if students in accredited programs are to remain competitive and contribute to the advancement of the profession as a whole, “…much of this professional advancement will not be in libraries.” (Cortez 2016, 225). Cortez is the former dean of an iSchool and seems to represent a vision of the future that is associated with many of those iSchools that have dropped “library” from their name or from their degree and focus on information rather than on librarianship as the future of the information professions. For a more detailed analysis and critique of Ed Cortez’s editorial, see Bradford Eden’s chapter, to be published in spring 2018 in Advances in Librarianship, entitled “The Relevance of ALA Accreditation: An Insider’s View of the ALA Committee on Accreditation,” (Eden 2018). Eden’s analysis considers ALA accreditation from the point of view of a librarian and member of the ALA Committee on Accreditation and specifically responds to some of the statements made by Cortez in his 2016 editorial regarding the relevance of librarianship in the future of the information professions.

As I complete my fourth (and final year) of participation on the Committee on Accreditation, it has become clear that COA needs to clarify to its constituents (and that includes the potential and current students, the alumni of accredited LIS programs, the library profession, and the public as a whole, as well as those information professionals who do not see a role for librarianship in the future of the broad field of the information professions) that ALA-COA does not accept the relegating of librarianship to the past. In fact, all indications are that librarianship has a strong role in the future, which will require information professionals who adhere to codes of professional ethics and who are dedicated to the support of critical thinking, seeking authentication and verification of facts based on the authority of a long-established dedication to supporting the right of people to obtain validated and corroborated information. In a time when we are questioning the ability of social media, business, government, and other interests to provide true and accurate information, there may be no other information profession better suited to separate the noise from the useful and accurate information needed to make personal, social, and cultural decisions.

The Committee on Accreditation continues to welcome other information professionals with shared interests and missions to work with the profession of librarianship to accommodate the concerns of those other information professions. In preparation for this column, an attempt was made to verify that the iSchools, early in their formation, had explored the possibility of establishing a process for accreditation of iSchools. After considerable search, no documentation of this effort has been found. As a result of the COA discussion following the 2016 report of the ALA Task Force on Accreditation Process and Communication and 2017 report of the Task Force on the Context of Future Accreditation, efforts to explore collaboration with the iSchools and other information profession organizations have been proposed. Clearly, there is considerable interest and concern about the future of education for the information professions. The long established and tested efforts of the ALA-COA have been recognized as an appropriate foundation for whatever collaboration is possible and for expansion of assessment of education for the information professions. Exploring collaboration rather than relegating one of the information professions to the past in order to clear the way for another would seem a better way to plan for the future.


Cortez, Ed. “Teaching for the Future, Not the Past.” Journal of Education for Library and Information Science 57, no. 3 (2016): 221-25.

Eden, Bradford. “The Relevance of ALA Accreditation: An Insider’s View of the ALA Committee on Accreditation,” in Re-envisioning the MLS: Perspectives on the Future of Library and Information Science Education (Advances in Librarianship, Volume 44A), edited by Johnna Percell, Lindsay C. Sarin, Paul T. Jaeger, John Carlo Bertot, 45-56. Bingley, United Kingdom: Emerald Publishing Limited, 2018.

Tilley, Carol and Scott Walter. “Editorial: What’s in a Name.” College & Research Libraries 77, no. 3 (2016): 1-5.


Spotlight on process and policy

By Kerri Price, Associate Director, ALA Office for Accreditation

The comprehensive review site visit

In each issue of Prism we focus on an aspect of process, policy, or procedure of ALA accreditation. If you have an idea for a future column, please send it to Kerri Price,

This issue’s column looks closely at an essential part of the comprehensive review process: the site visit. The site visit provides the external review panel (ERP, the panel) the opportunity to visit the campus on which the program resides in order to verify evidence and documentation supporting the assertions made in the program’s self-study. In other words, the ERP’s primary duty is to document the extent to which the program is in compliance with the Standards for Accreditation of Master's Programs in Library and Information Studies. The evidence gathered by the panel is then summarized in the ERP report (finalized in the weeks following the site visit), which is one of the sources used by the Committee on Accreditation (COA) when making accreditation decisions. Section II.10 of Accreditation Process, Policies, and Procedures (AP3) provides a brief overview of the site visit and Office for Accreditation (OA) staff cover aspects of it during both panelist and chair training sessions. I’ve had the pleasure of observing two site visits over the years, and while the size, focus, and scope of the programs visited differed significantly, both site visits were remarkably similar.

Because there is so much to cover during the site visit, meticulous planning is crucial. Preparations are primarily made by the program (either the program head or another designated program representative) and the ERP chair who work together to ensure an efficient and seamless process. Planning starts early – often as many as 12 months out - when meetings are scheduled with high-level institution administrators (president, provost, deans), whose schedules tend to fill up far in advance.

Roughly six months before the visit, the remainder of the arrangements are made, including everything from the site visit meeting schedule to local transportation options to restaurant recommendations for the panel. The ERP also needs a private, designated room on campus that provides a convenient meeting space to debrief and review documents only available onsite. This room usually needs access to technology, such as printers, internet access, and sometimes computers (although panelists often bring their own laptops/tablets.) The Office for Accreditation provides a variety of resources to assist ERP chairs when making site visit arrangements, including the site visit worksheet and the site visit schedule template.

While the visit is usually scheduled on a Monday and Tuesday, panelists often land a day or so in advance to begin work and leave the day following the visit. The visit typically commences with a meeting between the ERP and the program head, followed by tours of the facilities, e.g. the building that houses the program, classrooms, campus libraries, computer labs, and nearby satellite facilities. This is often a good time to meet with constituent groups that are not available during regular business hours, such as alumni, employers, and advisory boards.

The ERP reserves the official visit days (Monday and Tuesday) for meetings with administration (president, provost, deans), faculty, groups of students, and pertinent institution and program staff (the university librarian, financial aid staff, assessment officer, diversity and inclusion office staff, disability support services staff, etc.). If the program delivers face-to-face courses, this is the ERP’s opportunity to sit in on one or more of those. With some exceptions (e.g., individual faculty meetings and course visits), most meetings are attended by all panel members, and the discussion is led by the ERP chair. The meetings are collegial, and the questions asked are prepared in advance by the panel, with the aim of verifying the program’s compliance with the Standards. The site visit concludes with the exit briefing, which is described in great detail in section III.6 of AP3.

It’s important to note that technology is continually providing new ways for the program to complete its work more efficiently and effectively, often prior to the site visit. For example, panels often ask students and other constituent groups to complete online surveys or to participate in meetings held via video conferencing. This is especially useful if the program is delivered primarily or 100% online and these groups are scattered throughout the country (or world), making it difficult to assemble in person during the site visit. Panelists might also visit online courses (either synchronous or asynchronous) prior to the site visit, freeing up even more time for campus meetings and ERP collaboration onsite. In recent years, some programs have set up secure portals where they upload many of the documents that, in the past, were only available onsite. These documents can then be reviewed by the panel prior to the site visit and may include meeting minutes, student coursework, internship records, and course evaluations.

Prior to experiencing a site visit myself, I struggled to imagine how all the meetings, tours, and observations could occur in such a short amount of time, but with careful planning and the dedicated work of our talented pool of ERP chairs and panelists, it does. If you’re interested in serving the profession as an external review panelist and meet the qualifications, please complete the External Review Panel Member Information Form, and plan to attend the training session on Friday, June 22 at the 2018 ALA Annual Conference in New Orleans - RSVP to Kerri Price,, by June 1, 2018, and include “ERP Training” in the subject line. Registration is limited and is on a first-come, first-served basis.


In profile: Meet Gail Dickinson

Dr. Gail Dickinson (Associate Dean, Darden College of Education, Old Dominion University), longtime external review panelist/chair and reviewer/auditor for the AASL-CAEP school librarianship program review process, discusses her current professional endeavors and provides valuable insight into the accreditation process, as well as the qualities that make an effective reviewer.

Q: How would you describe your day job, and what are you currently working on?

Dickinson: As Associate Dean, I sometimes say that I spend my time signing my name. I sign off on all grants submitted, all paperwork required by students, and other processes related to graduate education for the Darden College of Education. We have six departments, from all facets of educator preparation, plus programs as diverse as counseling, speech pathology, and sports management. My current projects are preparing for the accreditation process for educator preparation and increasing the visibility of research in the college. We are planning a faculty/doctoral student research forum and working on ways to support our doctoral students as they travel to conferences to present their emerging research.

Q: When, why, and/or how did you initially become interested in serving as a reviewer?

Dickinson: I have been involved in all areas of the accreditation process, from helping to write standards for the AASL/CAEP process, serving as chair of committees reviewing the program review process, and serving on institutional committees to prepare for regional and national accreditation. I love puzzles, and in many ways, the accreditation process is a puzzle to figure out what piece of evidence supports which standards. I love the analytical process; I love a good mystery read, and there is always a piece of the process that is solving a mystery. I honestly don’t remember why I made the decision, I think my interests constantly pushed and pulled me into it.

Q: What three qualities make a great reviewer?

Dickinson: The top three qualities I believe are keeping an open mind, attention to detail, and an appreciation of nuance. We are looking for evidence to share the program’s story, and sometimes important evidence can be buried or hidden. Sometimes reviewers have to tease out different pieces that make up a story.

Q: Do you have any tips or cautions to share with panelists approaching their first comprehensive review experience?

Dickinson: Difference is a program strength. Just because a program has a unique organizational process does not mean it is wrong. The key is to always return to the Standards, and remember that the best processes happen when the review team and the program work together to share the story. It’s sometimes easy to slip into looking for flaws, instead of being open to differences.

Q: How have changes to process in recent years, such as varying panel size, the ERP report template, the meeting with COA, affected your experience as a reviewer and/or chair?

Dickinson: I have been on teams of all sizes, and visits of varying length. I understand about the costs to the program, but I worry about being able to do a comprehensive and thorough examination of all the standards. This trend has evoked positive changes, though, because it also presents the need for the team to meet several times virtually before the visit, so that we walk into the university with the majority of evidence in hand and a nice draft. Another trend that makes the smaller team and shortened visit possible is that almost all of the evidence can now be provided digitally. It makes the shortened time on campus more valuable with a focus on people, not paper. The template has made a huge difference, because it cuts out the time trying to figure out how to word a statement. The wording and organization are a great timesaver.

Q: Do you have any suggestions for how panelists who are practitioners working outside of academics can best learn about that environment, specifically library and information studies education?

Dickinson: The most important question is ‘why?’ No one knows everything, and even experienced reviewers find that program structures are very diverse. I have heard fascinating stories of program culture and university development. So it’s important for panelists not embedded in the university setting to ask questions. It also helps if panelists stay close to their alma mater, not necessarily as adjuncts or advisory board members, but just informed about the changes in their preparation programs. Universities are never the same, but they also are not all that much different. Understanding one program helps to understand others.

Q: Panels are comprised of both faculty members and practitioners who represent a variety of specialty areas within the field. How does this mix affect panel functioning and efficiency?

Dickinson: It’s not just the panelists from outside of the library and information studies (LIS) preparation field who have questions. Faculty and administrators from the university setting can get siloed with a diminished understanding of the field-in-practice. Understanding the needs of employers is a key point in the process to nearly all of the other standards, and practitioners can interrogate those needs better than panelists in the silo.

Q: What hobbies and interests do you have outside of work?

Dickinson: Thomas Jefferson once said “but though an old man, I am but a young gardener.” I understand that quote, and when it comes to gardening I am an infant. There is something satisfying about dabbling in the dirt. There are also wonderful gardening books, so it enables my book collection habit. I am writing this surrounded by grandchildren, which is a great thing and I look forward to watching both my gardening and my grandchildren grow.

Q: What are the last two good books you’ve read (one professional and one pleasure read)?

Dickinson: I doubt most would call it a professional read, but I recently just finished The Gentle Art of Swedish Death Cleaning, by Margareta Magnusson. Her book about making decisions regarding possessions is a great primer for discussions about the traditions of LIS programs and curricula. I read it as I was preparing for an accreditation visit, and I found that it helped my thinking about change. For pure pleasure and escape reading, I recently read Elin Hilderbrand’s The Identicals. It’s just a great beach read.


External review panelists acknowledged

External review panelists contribute substantial time and effort to the accreditation process to assure quality in LIS education. We extend our appreciation to the following panelists who served on accreditation reviews during the fall 2017 academic term.


  • Hermina Anghelescu, Professor, School of Library and Information Science, Wayne State University
  • Janine Golden, Associate Professor of Clinical Management and Organization, Marshall School of Business, University of Southern California
  • Dale McNeill, Assistant Director for Public Service, San Antonio Public Library
  • Anne Cooper Moore, Dean, J. Murrey Atkins Library, University of North Carolina at Charlotte


  • Tracy Bicknell-Holmes, Dean, Albertsons Library, Boise State University
  • Kenneth-Roy Bonin, Senior Fellow, Faculty of Public Affairs, Carleton University
  • Clara M. Chu, Director and Mortenson Distinguished Professor, Mortenson Center for International Library Programs, University of Illinois Library at Urbana-Champaign
  • Cheryl R. Dee, Adjunct Professor, San Jose State University
  • Rene Erlandson, Independent Consultant
  • Melissa Gross, Professor, School of Information, Florida State University
  • Mary E. Helms, Head, Strategic Initiatives, McGoogan Library of Medicine, University of Nebraska Medical Center
  • Bill Kules, Visiting Associate Professor, College of Information Studies, University of Maryland
  • Stephen Matthews, Librarian, Foxcroft School
  • Joe Mocnik, Dean, North Dakota State University Libraries
  • Anita Ondrusek, Professor (retired), Department of Library and Information Studies, Dewar College of Education and Human Services, Valdosta State University
  • Nancy C. Pack, Director, Alabama Public Library Service
  • Mary Stansbury, Associate Professor and Program Head, Library and Information Science Program, University of Denver
  • Annabel K. Stephens, Associate Professor (retired), School of Library and Information Studies, University of Alabama
  • Keith Ann Stiverson, Director, Law Library, Chicago-Kent College of Law


AASL-CAEP recognition news

ALA policy B.9.2.2 states: "The master's degree in librarianship from a program accredited by the American Library Association or a master’s degree with a specialty in school librarianship from an ALA/AASL Nationally Recognized program in an educational unit accredited by the Council for the Accreditation of Educator Preparation is the appropriate first professional degree for school librarians."

Fall 2017 AASL recognition decisions

The following programs, which are part of a CAEP-accredited education unit, received AASL National Recognition or National Recognition with Conditions during the fall 2017 semester. National Recognition is awarded to education master’s programs in school librarianship that have been reviewed and approved by AASL's program reviewers using the ALA/AASL Standards for Initial Preparation of School Librarians (2010).

  • East Central University, M.Ed. in Library Media
  • Northern Illinois University, M.S.Ed. in Instructional Technology with Library Information Specialist Endorsement
  • Plymouth State University, M.Ed. in K-12 Education, Library Media Specialist
  • University of Central Arkansas, M.S. in Library Media and Information Technologies

Fall 2017 reviewers

We extend our appreciation to the following program reviewers and auditors who served during the fall 2017 semester:

  • Anne T. Akers, Assistant Clinical Professor/School Library Program Coordinator, Department of Library and Information Studies, University of North Carolina at Greensboro
  • Susan D. Ballard, Project Director, School Librarian Program, Granite State College/University System of New Hampshire
  • Mary Ann Berry, Retired/Adjunct, Department of Library Science, Sam Houston State University
  • Naomi R. Caldwell, Associate Professor and Coordinator, Library Education Media Program, Alabama State University
  • Kelli A. Carney, Assistant Professor of Library Media, Curriculum and Instruction Department, Northeastern State University
  • Audrey P. Church, Coordinator, School Library Media Program, Longwood University
  • Gail Dickinson, Associate Dean, Darden College of Education, Old Dominion University
  • Lesley Farmer, Professor, Librarianship Program, Dept. of ASEC, California State University Long Beach
  • Sarah Meghan Harper, Associate Professor and K-12 School Library Media Concentration Coordinator, School of Information, Kent State University
  • Ramona N. Kerby, Professor, School Library Media Program, McDaniel College
  • Vandy Pacetti-Donelson, Online Librarian, Ultimate Medical Academy
  • Rebecca J. Pasco, Professor and Coordinator, Library Science Education Programs, University of Nebraska at Omaha
  • Karin Perry, Associate Professor and Program Coordinator, Department of Library Science, Sam Houston State University
  • Barbara Jo Ray, Professor (retired), Northeastern State University
  • Holly Weimar, Chair and Associate Professor, Department of Library Science, Sam Houston State University


The next issue of Prism will be published in November of 2018. Stay tuned!

Please send comments or feedback to