Guidelines for the External Review Panel

From Accreditation Process, Policies, and Procedures (AP3) (pdf)

Copyright 2006 by the American Library Association. All rights reserved except those which may be granted by Section 107 and 108 of the Copyright Revision Act of 1976.

III.1 The Role of Accreditation

III.2 Composition of the External Review Panel

III.3 The Site Visit Schedule

III.4 Conflict of Interest Policy

III.5 Role and Responsibilities of the ERP

III.5.1 ERP Chair’s Responsibilities

III.5.2 ERP Members’ Responsibilities

III.5.3 General Recommendations

III.5.4 Confidentiality

III.6 Site Visit Exit Briefing

III.6.1 Purpose of the Exit Briefing

III.6.2 Content of the Exit Briefing

III.7 The ERP Report

III.7.1 Outline of the Report

III.7.1 (a) Introduction

III.7.1 (b) Analysis

III.7.1 (c) Summary

III.7.1 (d) Deadlines

III.7.2 Format of the ERP Report

III.8 Sample ERP Report Title Page

III.9 Sample ERP Report Layout

III.10 Timeline for the ERP Visit and Report

---

III. Guidelines for the External Review Panel

III.1 The Role of Accreditation    

Accreditation is a voluntary, nongovernmental, and collegial process of self-review and peer review. In higher education, accreditation has two goals: 1) to ensure that post-secondary educational institutions and their units, schools, or programs meet appropriate standards of quality and integrity, and 2) to improve the quality of education these institutions offer.

For a complete description of American Library Association (ALA) accreditation, refer to the Overview (Section I) of this manual.

III.2 Composition of the External Review Panel    

An External Review Panel (ERP) typically consists of six (6) members. Beginning with spring 2009 review visits, all six (6) ERP members will visit the program unless other arrangements are agreed upon by the Office and the Program at least a year in advance of the scheduled visit. 

As much as possible, the composition of the panel reflects the emphasis in the program’s Plan for the Program Presentation and any requests for areas of special expertise. Panel members are selected through a cooperative process involving the Dean of the program, the Committee on Accreditation (COA), and the Office for Accreditation. Each panel includes individuals active in academia and in practice. The COA has the final authority on the size and composition of the panel.

The COA invites a member of the Canadian Library Association (CLA) member to accompany the panel for reviews of Canadian programs. The CLA observer is not a member of the panel, but is provided with all documents pertaining to the review. His or her role is to observe how the panel operates, not to influence its evaluation of the program. The CLA observer participates with the approval of the program and at the expense of the Canadian Library Association. CLA observers are expected to follow the guidelines for confidentiality as stated in Sections I.12 and II.5.4.

III.3 The Site Visit Schedule    

A site-visit occurs over two (2) business days, most often Monday and Tuesday. Typically, panelists arrive on Saturday to take advantage of reduced airfares and to review records and facilities on Sunday.

Site visits must occur at least ten (10) weeks before COA’s meeting at the ALA Mid¬winter Meeting or Annual Conference to allow the Committee time to review panel reports and optional school responses before the meeting. This deadline is generally mid-November for fall visits and mid-April for spring visit.

III.4 Conflict of Interest Policy    

The ALA’s Committee on Accreditation seeks to avoid any and all conflicts of interest that may compromise the integrity of its accreditation process. To this end, both the COA members and ERP members are asked to provide information regarding potential conflicts of interest with the program under review. The Dean and faculty of the program are also asked to provide any information regarding conflicts.  For a full discussion of conflict of interest procedures, panelists should refer to the “Overview” section of the manual, Section I.4.2.

III.5 Role and Responsibilities of the ERP    

The ERP plays a critical role in the accreditation process.  It is appointed by, is responsible to, and reports to the COA. The ERP serves as the COA’s agent during the site visit.  The ERP’s tasks include the analysis of the Program Presentation, the collection of additional information through the site visit, and the presentation of its findings to the COA in the form of an ERP report.  The COA uses this report in making decisions about accreditation of the program.

The ERP has a responsibility to report areas of both strength and limitations, as well as areas, if any, that may not be in compliance with the standards, and to identify areas for improvement. The ERP’s evaluation must, of necessity, be founded on the standards, but areas of strength and innovation may reach beyond the requirements as articulated by the standards.

Panelists should check the office website for resources for External Review Panelists.

III.5.1 ERP Chair’s Responsibilities    

COA appoints the Chair of the ERP approximately eighteen (18) months before the scheduled visit. This Chair’s responsibilities include the following:

III.5.2 ERP Members’ Responsibilities    

Panel members are appointed approximately one (1) year before the visit. The work of the ERP members begins when they receive assignments from the Chair, generally four (4) months before the visit. Most work starts when panelists receive and begin analysis of the Program Presentation that is sent to them six (6) weeks before the on-site visit.  Work continues throughout the visit and the development and submission of the ERP report to the COA.

Responsibilities of ERP members include the following:

III.5.3 General Recommendations    

Maintaining a collegial relationship and professional demeanor throughout the review process is important. Accreditation is a voluntary process. It is founded on the premises of continuous self-evaluation and improvement as well as on respect for the individuality and uniqueness of each program and institution.

In general, panelists are cautioned against inclinations to provide friendly advice and/or descriptions of how matters are handled at their own institution. Even though such information may be well intended, the role of the ERP member is as an observer and evaluator; the time members take to describe other institutions diminishes the time available to evaluate the program in question. The potential for such advice and recommendations to be interpreted as requirements for accreditation is of significant concern.

III.5.4 Confidentiality    

Communications between the COA, the Office, programs, and ERPs are confidential.  Members of the ERP are asked to maintain the confidentiality of all communications, including information contained in the Program Presentation and obtained throughout the visit.

III.6  Site Visit Exit Briefing    

Site visits conclude with an exit briefing that is an explanation of the panel’s findings and preliminary conclusions, combined with the formalities of a courteous departure. The briefing is held with the Dean, appropriate institutional representatives (e.g., CAO, CEO), and all panel members. The Dean and the Chair agree on which university administrators will attend this meeting. The Chair leads the exit briefing and may ask panel members to address an issue within their area of expertise.

III.6.1 Purpose of the Exit Briefing    

The exit briefing allows panel members and institutional representatives to:

The exit briefing is not however:

III.6.2 Content of the Exit Briefing    

The panel meets before the exit briefing to determine content and identify specific topics to address. The Chair should then meet with the Dean to alert him or her to the areas that will be covered in the exit briefing, particularly regarding any concerns of the panel.

The Chair needs to be careful to signal any possible problems or areas of concern and not gloss over them simply to offer temporary harmony during the exit briefing. The Chair and panel should not give the impression in this meeting that no problems were found and then identify important problems or concerns in the panel’s written report.

The exit briefing should include the following:

III.7   The ERP Report    

The COA uses the ERP report in conjunction with the Program Presentation. Thus, the ERP report should address key points from the standards based on evidence as outlined in Section II.6.5, but it should not recapitulate the information contained in the Program Presentation. References to pages in the Program Presentation should be made instead.

Panelists’ observations and evaluations must be founded on the standards and must provide an objective assessment of the program supported by evidence presented within the Program Presentation and/or gained as part of the on-site visit. Evidence can take the form of interviews, questionnaires of program stakeholders, quotes from program publications or communications, and similar documents.

The report should be written in a manner that provides analytical, evaluative, and constructive information about the program’s compliance with the standards. It should lead the reader to draw conclusions about the strengths, limitations, and challenges of the program. The report should be balanced in order to help improve the quality and effectiveness of the program and the school. Even if criticism is sometimes warranted, the panel should also recognize the strengths of the program and school.

III.7.1 Outline of the Report    

The ERP report should include the following sections:

III.7.1 (a) Introduction    

The introduction provides a brief description of the visit and of the individuals interviewed during the visit, along with a description of any other means (i.e., Web-based questionnaires, phone interviews, personal interviews, etc.) by which the panel collected information.

III.7.1 (b) Analysis    

This section of approximately 20 pages analyzes the program within the context of the standards. Organized standard by standard, this section provides an analysis, based on data and evidence, of the extent to which the program demonstrates conformity with each standard. The panel has a responsibility to report both areas of strength and limitations, as well as areas, if any, that may not be in compliance with the standards, and to identify areas for improvement.

Analysis of fact, trends, strengths, and identification of concerns should be based on data and other information obtained through the Program Presentation and the on-site visit. This analysis should be supported with evidence as demonstrated in Section II.6.5. The ERP does not make recommendations as to whether or not the program should be accredited. The report should not include specific statements regarding the program’s compliance with the standards, either individually or as a whole (for example, “The program complies with Standard I.”). Rather, the report should help the reader draw conclusions about the program’s conformity to the standards and should use the standards as the point of reference. If the panel finds information on which to base their analysis incomplete or missing, this, too, should be noted. Comparisons with other programs are inappropriate and should not be included.

III.7.1 (c) Summary    

The report should end with a brief summary statement. The summary statement may highlight strengths, limitations, and/or challenges for the program.

III.7.1 (d) Deadlines    

ERP Post-visit Report Deadines

Due Dates	Required Reports
Three (3) weeks after the site visit	The Chair sends a draft of the panel’s report to the Dean, the panel members, and the Director via email attachment requesting receipt confirmation and offering to send a copy by postal mail or fax upon request. Each recipient reviews the draft report and offers corrections of fact (if any).
Four (4) weeks after the site visit	The Dean provides factual corrections to the ERP report (if any) to the ERP Chair and the Director by email, fax or postal mail upon request.
Five (5) weeks after the site visit	The Chair sends the final ERP report to the Dean, Director, and all ERP members via email attachment requesting receipt confirmation and offering to send a copy by postal mail or fax upon request.

III.7.2 Format of the ERP Report    

The report should adhere to the following format:

• Use only one (1) side of the paper.
• Set margins to a minimum of 1 inch.
• Double-space the report.
• Use consecutive numbers through the report and be    consistent in their placement.
• Prepare a title page that includes all information in the sample in Section III.8.
• Write the report in the third person; for example, “The External Review Panel notes that. . . .”
• Use terminology that is gender-neutral.  ALA policy calls for use of the term “Chair” for the panel leader. Social or gender-related titles such as Mr. or Ms. should not be used. Academic titles (Dr.) may be used.  Use of female and male gender word forms (his/her) should be avoided, as should diminutives.
• When referring to the Standards, use either Standards or Standards for Accreditation.
• Do not capitalize the words “panel” or “report.”
• Be sure the names of the university, college, school, department, the program, and titles of individuals are correct. 
• These names should be used throughout the report.
• Properly cite references to the Program Presentation and/or other information sources.
• If information that came from an individual is used, include the person’s name and title.
• Include page references in the text for quotations and when paraphrasing.
• Avoid confusion between various drafts and the final report. Date the drafts and use a different title page for each report or include a header or footer stating, for example, “Draft for correction of factual errors.”

III.8   Sample ERP Report Title Page    

External Review Panel Report

on

ABC University's Degree or Program

of

Master of Arts in Library and Information Studies

Conducted on behalf of the
American Library Association Committee on Accreditation

Date

III.9  Sample ERP Report Layout    

Introduction

Standard I: Mission, Goals, and Objectives

Standard II: Curriculum

Standard III: Faculty

Standard IV: Students

Standard V: Administration and Financial Support

Standard VI: Physical Resources and Facilities

Summary

 

III.10   Timeline for the ERP Visit and Report    

(See Appendix A of AP3 for comprehensive review schedule timeline.)

ERP Site Visit Process and Timeline

Time Frame	Activities
Four (4) months before the scheduled visit	The program sends a draft of the Program Presentation to the Director and the ERP Chair. The Chair and Director provide suggestions regarding the draft to ensure that the Program Presentation addresses the standards and contains sufficient information an evidence to conduct an effective review. The Chair initiates planning for assignments and scheduling for the on-site visit. The Chair and the Dean begin drafting an agenda for the visit, and the Chair notifies the Dean of documents needed for the on-site review.
Six (6) weeks before the scheduled visit	The program sends the final Program Presentation to the Director and to each ERP member. The Chair and the Dean finalize the agenda for the on-site visit. The Chair assigns responsibilities to all panel members. ERP members begin their review and analysis of the Program Presentation.
Site Visit
Three (3) weeks after the visit	The Chair sends a draft of the panel’s report to the Dean, the panel members, and the Director via email attachment requesting receipt confirmation and offering to send a copy by postal mail or fax upon request. Each recipient reviews the draft report and offers corrections of fact (if any).
Four (4) weeks after the visit	The Dean provides factual corrections to the ERP report (if any) to the ERP Chair and the Director by email, fax or postal mail upon request.
Five (5) weeks after the visit	The Chair sends the final ERP report to the Dean, Director, and all ERP members via email attachment requesting receipt confirmation and offering to send a copy by postal mail or fax upon request.
Six (6) weeks after the visit	Optional response from the program is due in the Office for Accreditation. The Dean should send copies of the response to each ERP member.
At the next regularly scheduled COA meeting	The Chair and the Dean and/or other representatives of the school are invited to meet with the COA. The COA considers all the information and makes the accreditation decision.
Six (6) weeks after the COA decision	The Office for Accreditation sends copies of the Decision Document to ERP members.