Prism: the Office for Accreditation newsletter Spring 2013
Spring 2013, Volume 21, number 1 ISSN 1066-7873
Laura Dare, editor
In this issue:
Prism Archive - previous editions of Prism, from Fall 2003 through Fall 2012
Best of Prism - selected articles from previous issues
|63||ALA-accredited MLIS programs|
|58||Institutions with ALA-accredited MLIS programs|
|34||U.S. states (including Washington, DC, and Puerto Rico) with ALA-accredited programs|
|5||Canadian provinces with ALA-accredited programs|
ALA-accredited programs offering 100% online programs †
|2||Programs with candidacy status|
|1||Programs with pre-candidacy status|
|18,116||Students enrolled in ALA-accredited MLIS programs in fall 2012 *|
|8,049||Graduates of ALA-accredited MLIS programs during the 2011-2012 academic year *|
|† As identified by the programs|
|* As reported by programs to the Office for Accreditation|
- Master of Arts in Information Resources and Library Science program at the University of Arizona;
- Master of Library and Information Studies program at Dalhousie University;
- Master of Science and Master of Arts programs at the Florida State University.
The next comprehensive review visit at each institution is scheduled to occur in 2019.
Conditional accreditation status was granted to the following programs:
- Master of Science in Library and Information Science program at Long Island University.
The next comprehensive review visit is scheduled to occur in 2015.
- University of Alberta
- University of Maryland
- University of North Texas
- University of Pittsburgh
- Southern Connecticut State University
- University of British Columbia
- East Carolina University
- University of Ottawa
- Valdosta State University
- University of Washington
By Karen L. O'Brien, Director, ALA Office for Accreditation
This fifth year of Standards review culminates in a comprehensive look at commentary received, including notes taken in meetings at ALA and ALISE (Association for Library and Information Science Education) conferences. The link to the final of the planned series of web surveys focusing on Standard IV: Students, Standard V: Administration and Financial Support, and Standard VI: Physical Resources and Facilities was sent to chief program executives (deans, directors, and chairs) on March 1.
The survey was also made more widely available at the Standards Review site. The survey remained open through March 29. The Committee on Accreditation (COA) will discuss the results at the 2013 spring meeting April 12 and 13 and develop a written analysis for posting at the Standards Review site. Analysis of the results of the prior surveys is available at that link.
Additional research to inform the Standards review is underway, including comparison of the criteria of other accreditors in terms of amount of specificity, the language and terminology employed, and approaches to providing interpretative advice.
A draft revision of the Standards is planned for wide release in December 2013. Written and verbal comment on the draft will be collected through September 13, 2014, and carefully considered by COA in fall 2014.
Annual statistical reporting
Improvements in data collection and reporting accomplished by ALISE in the past year allowed many programs to submit the ALISE output for COA reporting requirements without submitting the Office for Accreditation questionnaire. The Office will continue to make a questionnaire available based on data collected by ALISE; however, programs are welcome to submit just their ALISE output data to the Office for Accreditation. December 1 will remain the Office for Accreditation due date for submission of statistical data.
Review and trending of 2011-2012 statistical data remains underway. With most of the data on hand, the summary of changes report is posted on the Reports and Publications page of the Office for Accreditation website. Note on that page that a link to trend data on all accredited programs is now available.
Programs seeking initial accreditation
Chicago State University has submitted an application for candidacy. Representatives of the program seeking candidacy will meet with the Committee on Accreditation during the COA 2013 spring meeting April 12 and 13 in Chicago. The Committee will decide following the meeting with the program whether to grant the program candidacy status. If granted, COA will set a date for an external review panel to visit the campus and verify the self study Program Presentation.
Two programs in candidacy status, East Carolina University (NC) and the University of Ottawa (ON, Canada), are set for a visit in fall 2013. COA decisions on initial accreditation will take place at the 2014 ALA Midwinter Meeting. An external review panel will visit with East Carolina University constituents on October 14 and 15. Visits with constituents of the University of Ottawa program are scheduled for September 30 and Oct 1.
CHEA decision on ALA recognition
Reaffirmation of ALA-COA recognition has been recommended by the Committee on Recognition of the Council for Higher Education Accreditation (CHEA) to the Board of Directors. The CHEA Board is expected to make a decision at its April 29, 2013, meeting. Documentation of the three-year comprehensive review is available on the Office's CHEA Recognition page.
Disclosure of accreditation information
Those versed in the profession of information provision are well aware of relevancy dilemmas—not enough information misleads and too much confuses. The two entities overseeing accreditation in the U.S., the U.S. Dept of Education and the Council for Higher Education Accreditation (CHEA), are interested in increasing public disclosure of accreditation information, while accreditors are interested in candid reporting from the entities they accredit, which can be constrained by public disclosure.
CHEA recognition standards, revised in 2010, include additional requirements to inform the public of the basis for final decisions to grant or reaffirm accreditation and, in the case of denial or withdrawal of accreditation, to provide specific reasons for the decision accompanied by a response, related to the final decision, from the institution or program.
Explore this topic with the COA at the 2013 ALA Annual Conference in Chicago on Sunday, June 30 from 4:30-5:30 pm at the Hilton: "Accreditation Transparency and Information Disclosure—How Bare is Fair?"
Opportunities to connect
I invite you to give me a call at 312-280-2434 or drop me a line. I hope to see you in Chicago for the 2013 ALA Annual Conference -- you are welcome to get in touch to arrange a meeting with me there.
Public Disclosure and Investment in Education
By Brian Andrew, Chair, Committee on Accreditation, and Procurement Counsel, MEMC Electronic Materials, Inc.
Spotlight on process and policy
Program Presentation: Purpose and Processs
By Laura Dare, Assistant Director, ALA Office for Accreditation
In each issue of Prism we focus on an aspect of process, policy, or procedure of ALA accreditation. This issue’s column takes a look at the Program Presentation and its role in the comprehensive review process. If you have an idea for a future column, please send it to Laura Dare.
Overview of the Program Presentation
An important piece – perhaps the centerpiece – of every higher-education accreditation review is the self-study document. The institution or program assesses, analyzes, and evaluates itself in relation to standards and then summarizes its findings and plans in the self study. In ALA accreditation, this document is called the Program Presentation. Section II of the ALA Accreditation Process, Policies and Procedures (AP3) is devoted entirely to the Program Presentation.
The Program Presentation serves three purposes:
- To document how the program is in compliance with the Standards;
- To describe how the school plans to maintain the accredited program and to continue compliance with the Standards;
- To serve as an ongoing planning and assessment tool for the school and program. (AP3, Section II.2)
Although the program head (usually a dean, director, or chair) is responsible for submitting the Program Presentation in the comprehensive review process, an ad-hoc committee usually plans and oversees the development of the document. The Program Presentation should reflect input from representatives of all constituents of the program: faculty, students, alumni, employers of the graduates, advisors, etc.
To ensure that the final Program Presentation will be useful to the program, the External Review Panel (ERP), and the Committee on Accreditation, the head of the program submits a plan for the Program Presentation for review 12 months in advance and a draft four months before the final document is due. The Director of the Office for Accreditation and the Chair of the ERP review the plan and draft and provide feedback to the program head.
Plan for the Program Presentation
More than just an outline for development of the final document, the plan serves as a blueprint for the comprehensive review. Who is involved in the comprehensive review process and what are their roles? The plan should list the names and roles of the individuals and groups who will be providing advice, compiling evidence of compliance with the Standards, and writing sections of the Program Presentation. What is the schedule for developing the Program Presentation? A timeline of the program’s activities leading to the Program Presentation and the site visit is also part of the plan. How will the program indicate compliance with each standard? The plan should provide a standard-by-standard list of documents and other evidence that the program will use to indicate compliance.
The Director of the Office for Accreditation and the Chair of the ERP review the plan and provide feedback to the program head. The Director has reviewed many plans and the ERP Chair has had experience reading the Program Presentations of several different programs, so their input can be very valuable. See AP3, Section II.4 for more information on the plan for the Program Presentation.
Draft Program Presentation
The program submits a draft Program Presentation to the Office for Accreditation and the ERP Chair four months before the final Program Presentation is due. The draft Program Presentation is expected to be as close as possible in content and format to the final version. The ERP Chair shares the draft with the other panelists for their feedback. Because the Program Presentation will be read by several people who may be unfamiliar with the program, many programs have found it helpful to arrange for someone from outside the program to review the document and make editorial suggestions prior to submitting it to the Office and the ERP. An editor can help bring one coherent voice to the document.
As with the plan, a conference call is held with the program head, the ERP Chair, and the Director of the Office for Accreditation. During that call, the ERP Chair may identify missing, inconsistent, or unclear parts of the Program Presentation and provide suggestions for the organization of the material. See AP3, Section II.5 for more information on the draft Program Presentation.
Final Program Presentation
The final Program Presentation is due to each External Review Panelist and the Office for Accreditation six weeks before the site visit. AP3, Section II.6 provides specific instructions regarding content, format and organization of the document. Section II.6.4 provides a list of suggested evidence that might be used to indicate compliance with the Standards.
As they review the Program Presentation, panelists will identify additional evidence that they will need to see either in advance of or during the site visit. Those requests will be compiled by the ERP Chair and sent to the program.
A well-written, thoughtful Program Presentation that depicts the context of the program and describes plans for reaching its mission, goals, and objectives should serve the program well through the review and into the future.
Why must the final Program Presentation be prepared and submitted in both print and electronic formats?
- The final document will be read and analyzed by a variety of people who have different reading preferences. Some need the accessibility of a printed copy; some prefer reading and taking notes on a computer. Many use both formats simultaneously.
Why is the draft Program Presentation shared with the entire ERP?
- We’ve found that getting the ERP familiar with the Program Presentation at the draft stage allows them to request additional evidence earlier in the process. Programs generally appreciate having more time to respond to those requests.
How does the program know how many copies of the final Program Presentation to make and where to send them?
- The Office for Accreditation provides that information after the draft Program Presentation is received.
How can the program keep track of the various due dates?
- The Office for Accreditation provides each program with a timeline (in Excel) of activities and due dates for the review.
As always, we in the Office for Accreditation are happy to provide more information on the accreditation process. Contact us at firstname.lastname@example.org.
News and announcements
External Review Panel training at 2013 ALA Annual Conference in Chicago
Date: Friday, June 28, 2013
Time: 8:00am – 12noon
Location: Hilton Chicago (720 S. Michigan), Boulevard A
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
- 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. If you are interested and meet the minimum qualifications, please complete the External Review Panel Member Information Form and plan to attend the training session in June at the 2013 ALA Annual Conference in Chicago.
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 Laura Dare.
ALA accreditation appeal process training at 2013 ALA Annual Conference in Chicago
Date: Friday, June 28, 2013
Location: Hilton Chicago (720 S. Michigan), PDR2
AASL/NCATE program reviewer training at 2013 ALA Annual Conference in Chicago
Date: Friday, June 28, 2013
Location: McCormick Place, MCP-S505b
New and experienced reviewers are encouraged to attend this session facilitated by Mary Berry, Chair of the NCATE Coordinating Committee, and Elizabeth Vilky, Director of Program Review at NCATE. Participants will learn about the NCATE process, the transition to CAEP, the ALA/AASL Standards for School Librarian Preparation, writing and reviewing reports, and appropriate assessments. Attendees will study a sample program report and participate in a review exercise. While the focus will be on preparing reviewers to write a recognition report, program report writers are welcome to attend as observers.
Reviewers who have not been trained on using the 2010 Standards must attend a training in order to participate on a review team.
Please RSVP to Laura Dare by June 10 and include “AASL/NCATE training” in the subject line.
Learn more about the AASL/NCATE program review process.
AASL/NCATE Coordinating Committee meeting
Date: Friday, June 28, 2013
Location: McCormick Place, MCP-S505b
Members of the AASL/NCATE Coordinating Committee are strongly encouraged to attend. The meeting is also open to interested conference attendees.
Update to the ALA policy on education for school librarianship
At the 2013 Midwinter Meeting in Seattle, the ALA Council adopted the following update to the ALA policy on education for school librarianship:
Policy B.9.2.2 School Librarians (formerly ALA Policy #54.2.2) states: The master’s degree in library and information studies 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. (Adopted July 11, 1988, by ALA Council; revised 2008, 2013.)
Update on the transition of NCATE and TEAC to CAEP
On February 15 the Council for the Accreditation of Educator Preparation (CAEP) Commission on Standards and Performance Reporting released for public comment its draft recommendations for the accreditation standards for educator preparation. CAEP received over 500 comments.
Feedback on the proposed draft standards will be compiled and shared with the CAEP Commission at its June 10-11 meeting. The Commission will then make revisions and send the final draft document to the CAEP board for review and approval. It is expected that the review and approval by the CAEP board will occur in July or August 2013.
External Review Panelists acknowledged
External review panelists contribute substantial time and energy to the accreditation process to assure quality in LIS education. We extend our appreciation to the following panelists who served during the fall 2012 academic term.
- Edwin M. Cortez, Director, School of Information Sciences, University of Tennessee
- Ann Curry, Professor, MA in Communication Tech Program, University of Alberta
- Brad Eden, Dean of Library Services, Valparaiso University
- Terry Weech, Associate Professor, GSLIS, University of Illinois at Urbana-ChampaignStephens, Associate Professor (retired), SLIS, University of Alabama
- Karen Adams, Director of Libraries, University of Manitoba
- Mary Arnold, Public Service Supervisor, Maple Heights Public Library, Cuyahoga County Library
- Frank Cervone, Vice Chancellor for Information Services, Purdue University Calumet
- Karen Cook, Assistant Professor, DLS, Clarion University of Pennsylvania
- Yolanda J. Cuesta, President, Cuesta MultiCultural Consulting
- Prudence W. Dalrymple, Director, Institute for Healthcare Informatics, Drexel University
- Mirah J. Dow, Associate Professor, SLIM, Emporia State University
- Barbara J. Ford, Director, Mortenson Center for International Library Programs, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
- Vicki L. Gregory, Professor, SLIS, University of South Florida
- Joe Janes, Associate Professor and MLIS Program Chair, University of Washington
- Andrew Large, Professor of Information Studies, McGill University
- Susan Martin, President, Find My Classmates
- Dale McNeill, Director, Public Library Services, Queens Library
- Jennifer Paustenbaugh, University Librarian, Brigham Young University
- Sheri Ross, Assistant Professor, MLIS Program, St. Catherine University
- Keith Ann Stiverson, Director, Law Library, Illinois Institute of Technology
- Jennifer Sweeney, Adjunct Faculty, College of Information Science and Technology, Drexel University
- Jerilyn Veldof, Organization Development Associate, Librarian, University of Minnesota Libraries
AASL/NCATE recognition news
Fall 2012 AASL recognition decisions
- East Central University, Teacher Preparation Program, Library Media Specialist
- Fairfield University, Graduate School of Education and Allied Professions, School Media Specialist Advanced
- Georgia College and State University, College of Education, M.Ed. in Library Media Specialist
- Marshall University, College of Education and Human Services, School Library Media Specialist
- Notre Dame of Maryland University, Education Department, Library Media
- Oklahoma State University, Professional Education Unit, School Library Media Specialist
- Sam Houston State University, College of Education, School Librarian
- Towson University, College of Education, School Library Media
- University of Maryland College Park, College of Education, School Library Media
- University of Nebraska at Kearney, College of Education, Library Media
- Valley City State University, School of Education and Graduate Studies, M.Ed. with Library and Information Technologies Concentration
- Wright State University, College of Education and Human Services, Library/Media Education
Fall 2012 reviewers
- Susan Allen
- Sandra Andrews
- Patricia Antrim
- Mary Berry
- Judy T. Bivens
- Gail Bogel
- Pauletta Bracy
- Naomi Caldwell
- Rosemary Chance
- Audrey P. Church
- Patsy Couts
- Sherry Crow
- Gail Dickinson
- Lesley Farmer
- Roxanne Forgrave
- Elizabeth Haynes
- Angel Kymes
- Linda Lillard
- Cheryl McCarthy
- Andrea Miller
- Janice Newsum
- Deborah Parrott
- Rebecca J. Pasco
- Barbara Ray
- Carolyn Starkey
- Linda J. Underwood
- Holly Weimar
- Jan Yates
- Connie Zimmer
The next issue of Prism will be published in November 2013. Stay tuned!