Dear SC Members,
Thank you so much for reviewing ACRL Standards for Libraries in Higher Education (Drafted Sept. 28, 2017). We submitted our review report to SLHE Task Force on October 18, 2017. The chair of the Task Force was impressed with our thorough reviews. She will get back to us in early November 2017.
In the meantime, we received ACRL Framework for Academic Librarian Employment and Governance Systems drafted by Status of Academic Librarians Standards and Guidelines Review Task Force in September 2017.
The final draft of the framework was derived from six existing documents consisting of a mixture of guidelines, standards and statements. The Task Force rescinded "Guidelines for Academic Librarians without Faculty Status" and "Standards for Faculty Status for Academic Librarians," revised "A Guideline for the Appointment, Promotion, and Tenure of Academic Librarians," and kept existing version of the documents for a) "Joint Statement on Faculty Status of College and University Librarians," b) "Statement on Certification and Licensing of Academic Librarians," and c) "Statement on the Terminal Professional Degree for Academic Librarians."
The proposed framework would "provide a structure and allow individual libraries the flexibility to determine what will work best within their institution in modifying a shared governance system that provides a foundation on which to build and define the intellectual role of librarians on their campuses".
November 3, 2017 is the deadline to respond to the document for "ACRL Framework for Academic Librarian Employment and Governance Systems" and its associated Transmittal Form. Please find the documents in the attachment.
 ACRL Status of Academic Librarians Standards and Guidelines Review Task Force, "ACRL Framework for Academic Librarian Employment and Governance Systems," p. 2.
Thank you so much indeed! I am looking forward to working with you on this project. Have a great weekend!
Chair, Standards Committee
I have concerns about the solicitation of comments, it doesn't quite seem like enough (printed in August, one listserve of Administrators and 2 experts)... but if everyone else is fine with it then I'm fine.
I'm not sure it should be called a Framework.... I think it's more of a Guideline since each institution will have to modify it to fit their institutions and governance procedures.
On page 7&8, they indicate that for non renewal of contract the appointment must be probationary. I have worked at 2 institutions where this is not the case. Non renewal of contracts can happen to anyone with proper written notice. And at those institutions, no reasons are required. This works for all faculty positions. As the guideline is written, it would go though major revisions for those institutions.
On page 11, b should not be labeled... it is a Note so it should go directly under a. And they are missing the closing bracket for the Note.
That's it for me.
I agree with Katherine re: pg. 11. Other than this, I approve the framework as written. I have no objection to the transmittal form as written either.
Here are my comments. I recommend the document be returned for major revisions. Overall, the "framework" reads like four existing documents were combined into one with little review or revision of each. It would make sense to have one cohesive guideline with an introduction explaining the various parts, and one set of notes at the end.
I agree with Katherine regarding the solicitation of comments. It was just disseminated on one email list and there were no public hearings. Only two experts were consulted. It would be helpful to know what institutions they are from, only the name of the library is listed. Also, I assume this document applies to librarians who work at community colleges. Should an expert from that type of institution be consulted? And lastly, in the document it mentions three examples of shared governance documents. Were these consulted in the process of revising this document? Should that information be a part of the transmittal form? And should there be a variety of governance documents that were reviewed for different types of librarian status and different types of institutions?
I reviewed the ACRL Policies and Procedures regarding the definition of a framework. It is defined as follows: A Framework is intended to connect inter-related core concepts for student learning in information literacy appropriate to a variety of contexts. I agree with Katherine that guidelines would be more appropriate.
Also, it is proposed that two documents be retired. Is "rescinded" the proper terminology ACRL uses?
About the Framework section:
Joint Statement on Faculty Status...
Guideline for the Appointment...:
Thank you so much, Nancy, Katherine, Scott and Binh Le for your thoughtful review and vote! I agree with Nancy that the document should be returned for major revision. In addition to what Katherine and Nancy already commented, I would like to add the following:
Chair, ACRL Standards Committee
I recommend that the document be returned for the formatting edit.
I especially agree with Katherine on the probationary statement!
Dear SC members,
Thank you so much for your review on ACRL Framework for Academic Librarian Employment and Governance Systems! I incorporated all of your comments into the report and submitted to the originating group on time. I hope the Task Force will consider our suggestions. I will keep you informed of the process. Attached please find our review report. Thank you so much indeed! Have a great weekend!
Chair, ACRL Standards Committee
50 E Huron St. | Chicago, IL | 60611 | USA
© 2009-2020 American Library Association
Request a New Community