












































Always Room for Mindfulness


285

Prepare Your Library for an ATS 
Accreditation Visit
Kelly Campbell, PhD, Associate Dean of Information Services, Senior Director 
of the Library, Columbia Theological Seminary
Andy Keck, Chief of Staff, Perkins School of Theology at Southern Methodist 
University

ABSTR ACT: When an institution is preparing for an ATS Accreditation 
visit, the library needs to prepare as well. This article provides a brief 
history of how the new Standards of Accreditation were created in 2020, 
including the philosophy guiding the standards. It outlines ways to 
prepare a library that covers Standard 6, which is the library standard. 
In the article, a reader learns how to collect data, write the narrative 
for Standard 6, and provide the evaluation team with conclusions and 
recommendations.

Welcome to the world of accreditation. Sometimes, accreditation 
has a bad reputation, or people groan when they hear the word 
accreditation, but accreditation intends to help ensure students 
receive a quality education. As educators and librarians, we invest 
in students and want them to grow during their time at our insti-
tutions. So, being a good partner with administration, faculty, and 
others in institutions regarding accreditation is an innovative and 
strategic move.

This article has three goals. The first goal is for you to be more 
acquainted with the ATS Standards of Accreditation (2020), particu-
larly Standard 6, which is the library standard. Second is to have 
concrete ideas on how to write for Standard 6. The final goal is to 
learn how accreditation can be simple and logical so you can be a 
resource and leader in your institution on this topic. 

In 2000, ATS reviewed and revised its existing standards. The 
U.S. Department of Education requires accreditation agencies to 
review their standards on a regular basis. The old standards had 
grown exponentially due to the emergence of online education and 



286    ATL A 2024 PROCEEDINGS

master’s degrees within theological education. The old standards had 
ten basic standards, ten educational standards, and degree program 
standards (one for each of the degree programs the school offered). 
Therefore, the time was ripe to review and revise the ATS standards. 

The ATS staff member who led this review was Dr. Debbie Creamer, 
a fellow librarian who left Iliff School of Theology to work at ATS.1 
This work was comprehensive and broad-reaching. Debbie and the 
librarian member of the ATS standards redevelopment task force, 
Mitzi Budde, came to an Atla Annual asking for input on the stan-
dards. At that point in time, no guarantee existed that a separate 
standard for libraries would be included in the new standards, 
or that libraries would be mentioned at all in the new standards. 
Partially due to the theological librarians’ input, a separate library 
standard remained in the new standards. The result of this multi-
year process was that ten new standards passed unanimously by 
the ATS membership. 

The new standards are principle-based and focus on educational 
quality, accreditation clarity, and contextualized flexibility compared 
to the old standards, which were more prescriptive. However, neither 
the old standards and nor new standards are compliance-based on. 
For example, many regional accreditation agencies’ standards are 
compliance-based, meaning when the accreditors come to visit, they 
mark items with either a yes or no. Institutions either follow the 
standards (are compliant), or not. In other words, an institution fits 
within a specific box, whether it is a stand-alone or embedded school. 

The new standards seek in all ways to embody the ATS mission 
“to promote the improvement and enhancement of theological 
schools to the benefit of communities of faith and the broader public” 
(Association of Theological Schools, n.d.) and the ATS Commission 
purpose “to contribute to the enhancement and improvement of theo-
logical education through the accreditation of schools” (Association 
of Theological Schools, n.d.).” Accreditation is a voluntary process 
through which schools mutually assure one another’s educational 
quality with an eye toward ongoing improvement based on standards. 

These standards articulate principles of quality for graduate 
theological education that all schools meet in various ways. The 
principles can be interpreted in a variety of ways. In other words, 
no one way exists to demonstrate how your institution is achieving 



Listen and Learn Sessions    287

a principle. Each school has a right way in its unique context, and 
no one answer exists for over 240 ATS institutions. 

Standard 6.10 states “the library provides environments conducive 
to learning and scholarly research, with appropriate agreements for 
its contracted or consortial resources” (Association of Theological 
Schools 2020, 10). This standard represents a principle of quality 
agreed upon as an element of theological education. However, how 
each institution achieves this principle of quality is left to the insti-
tution. The purpose of the narrative and evidence in the self-study 
is to demonstrate how a particular library in a specific institution 
achieves this principle of quality in its context. A standalone school 
library delivering only online degrees might provide a different envi-
ronment conducive to learning compared to an embedded divinity 
school within a university structure. The blessing and freedom of 
principle-based standards is the ability of each institution to fulfill 
its mission within broad boundaries agreed upon by ATS members 
or their peers.

ATS accreditation is based on peer reviewers. Peers (the ATS mem-
bership) formed the committee to review the standards. Peers are 
members of all ATS evaluation teams. Peers are colleagues wanting 
each institution to deliver the highest quality of theological educa-
tion in its particular context. 

To help institutions grasp the new principle-based standards, the 
preamble to the new standards describes the purpose of accreditation 
well: “Accreditation is about quality assurance for various publics 
and ongoing improvement for theological schools, especially regard-
ing student learning and formation” (Association of Theological 
Schools 2020, ii). Instead of skipping over this section, please take 
a few moments to read through it. Sections include standards and 
membership priorities, standards and their purposes, and standards 
and their interpretation. It is excellent!

Additionally, ATS created a helpful resource called Standards 
of Accreditation (with Self-Study Ideas) (Association of Theological 
Schools 2024). In the self-study ideas, they give examples of how to 
achieve the principle of quality based on context. When writing to 
this standard, refer to these ideas. These ideas are not the only way to 
provide evidence of how your institution is achieving the principles 
of quality—they are suggestions, not requirements.



288    ATL A 2024 PROCEEDINGS

Standard 6.1 lays out the library purpose and connection to the 
institutional mission: “The library has a clear statement that identi-
fies its purpose and role in the school and the ways it contributes 
to achieving the school’s educational mission. The library’s purpose 
statement forms the foundation for evaluating library and informa-
tion services” (Association of Theological Schools 2020, 10). A school 
might demonstrate its engagement with this standard by describing 
its purpose statement and explaining how (and by whom) it was 
developed, adopted, and distributed. It might explain how this state-
ment connects with the school’s overall mission and the context of 
its stakeholders. The self-study might also discuss how this statement 
serves as a foundation for the library’s evaluation processes. If the 
library serves more than just the graduate theological school (e.g., 
a university library or a consortial library), the self-study might 
show how the statement helps the library give sufficient attention 
to the graduate theological program and the specific needs of its 
students and faculty.

A few points about assessment in relation to the library need to 
be made, especially regarding principle-based standards. You and 
your library staff need to develop the criteria by which the library 
will be evaluated, find ways to measure the achievement of those 
criteria, use the results to make further improvements, and begin 
the cycle again. 

Perhaps it is obvious but still worth emphasizing: address the 
standard, even when (as in 6.10), it almost feels like two standards 
put together. One part is concerned with patron access to learning 
environments, while the second part is concerned with patron access 
to learning resources. Both the learning environments and learning 
resources could address both the physical and the virtual/digital. 
The point is to address the standard. Sometimes, an excellent way 
to do that is to use keywords and phrases from the standard as a 
way of assuring the reader that you have read and understood the 
standard. More importantly, if it is a compound standard with two 
or three aspects to it, make sure to address all of them. 

Now, you are ready to demonstrate (provide evidence) how your 
library is achieving the standards when you write the self-study. What 
data do you have to provide proof? Libraries collect lots of data, but 
how much data is used and useful? One way to demonstrate evidence 



Listen and Learn Sessions    289

is to match data collection to the ATS standards, which is a method 
learned and presented by Dr. Timothy Lincoln. Lincoln’s yearly library 
survey questions matched the standards as articulated in Standard 
6. (On your annual library survey of users, you can ask them if the 
library is providing an environment conducive to… and provide a 
five-point Likert scale.) Once this process is started, depending on 
where the library is in the accreditation cycle, two to three years 
or five years of data showing evidence of the library achieving this 
standard can be available—thus demonstrating evidence. 

Additionally, provide open-ended questions on this annual library 
survey question. Ask users how the library offers this environment. 
Then, these user statements are utilized by adding them to the nar-
rative of the self-study, demonstrating (again, providing evidence) 
that the library is achieving this standard within the context. Many 
libraries survey all students once a year, and faculty are surveyed 
every three years. 

A second source of data is the ATS entering and exiting surveys 
called ESQ and GSQ. These surveys have one question divided into 
two parts related to the library already built into the primary sur-
vey. Additionally, an institution can petition ATS to add additional 
library questions to these surveys. 

Standard 2.6 outlines the evaluation process for accreditation:

Evaluation is a simple, systematic, and sustained process that (a) identifies 
key educational and institutional outcomes (including learning outcomes 
for each degree program); (b) systematically and regularly gathers evidence 
related to each outcome (with a mixture of direct and indirect measures 
and quantitative and qualitative data); (c) engages appropriate stakehold-
ers (especially faculty for educational outcomes) on a sustained basis to 
analyze and reflect upon how well the evidence indicates that each edu-
cational and institutional outcome is being achieved; and (d) uses those 
analyses and reflections for educational and institutional improvement. 
(Association of Theological Schools 2020, 2.)  

Sometimes, schools get anxious over accreditation and fill their 
self-study with too much data, which is overwhelming to the visit-
ing committee. Or the data points are not interconnected or do not 
show a change based on the data. Find the balance between too little 
and too much data—make it simple, systematic, and sustainable. 



290    ATL A 2024 PROCEEDINGS

In the old standards, one standard was on diversity. In the new 
standards, diversity is woven throughout the standards so that 
diversity can be mentioned in almost all the standards. Sometimes, 
schools use the library as a touch point for diversity. But as the 
evaluation standards say, think about how the diversity of services 
and collections are related to student diversity, faculty diversity, 
and curriculum diversity. Be creative with your colleagues when 
writing the self-study. Do not let the library be the only place for 
diversity within your context. Diversity was of such significant value 
that the ATS membership voted on these standards with diversity 
woven throughout them, demonstrating that diversity is woven 
throughout the institution. 

Institutions submit their self-study at least 90 days before the 
accreditation visit. The evaluation team receives the self-study. For 
a pro tip, if you are on an evaluation committee, start writing the 
evaluation committee’s report before or while on the accreditation 
visit. The bulk of the report will be an evaluative summary of the 
self-study. The library section (addressing the standard and pre-
senting the data) may be twenty pages; the evaluator will shrink it 
down to a page or two. You want to read the committee’s comments 
on the library. Do not let administrators hide the committee report. 
Additionally, the committee report can be added to the institution’s 
archives. 

One of the critical parts of an Evaluation Team report is a one or 
two-page set of “committee recommendations.” They are referenced 
as recommendations as it is up to the ATS Board of Commissioners 
to decide on the final actions. 

• First, there is a recommendation to approve degrees 
and the length of accreditation. Ten years is the 
entire accreditation period, although it is becoming 
less common. However, for many years, it has been 
typical. 

• Second, there is a recommendation to affirm sev-
eral distinctive strengths. It is not uncommon to see 
libraries mentioned here. 

• Third, there is a recommendation for issues that 
need special attention during the next period of 
accreditation. These are things to work on and that 



Listen and Learn Sessions    291

you will be asked about next time. 
• Fourth, there are recommendations around 

required reports and, in some cases, focused visits 
or warnings. It is typical to have a couple of reports 
due back to ATS on items that are more troublesome 
or urgent than the next period of accreditation. This 
is a place of accountability: if you need a report 
back from ATS for the library, that gets the attention 
of your administration and board. 

• Less common, but not uncommon, is the recom-
mendation for a focused visit—which often means 
an ATS staff member and perhaps one other peer 
evaluator will revisit your campus. Focused visits 
are not necessarily more urgent or serious, but they 
are for complex circumstances that make it difficult 
for a single written report to address. 

• Warnings and formal notations are more serious 
and registered publicly. 

Most self-studies have used conclusions/recommendations in each 
area, including the library, to self-evaluate where improvements 
might be made. Use that wisely. The Evaluation Team may make good 
use of them in their report. In response to the library standard and 
sub-standards, the Evaluation Team will often make a “summary 
statement” that is based upon the self-study and interviews. Their 
responses may also include suggestions or things “to consider”—
which can be summarized feedback from peers. However, these 
are ultimately suggestions. In the writing of the reports, the word 
recommend is reserved for items that are officially noted as action 
items needing attention. Anytime the word recommends appears, 
this triggers a required response. 

REFERENCES

Association of Theological Schools. 2020. “Standards of Accreditation.” 
https://www.ats.edu/files/galleries/standards-of-accreditation.pdf.

Association of Theological Schools. 2024. “Standards of Accreditation 
(with Self-Study Ideas).” https://www.ats.edu/files/galleries/stan-
dards-of-accreditation-with-self-study-ideas.pdf

https://www.ats.edu/files/galleries/standards-of-accreditation.pdf
https://www.ats.edu/files/galleries/standards-of-accreditation-with-self-study-ideas.pdf
https://www.ats.edu/files/galleries/standards-of-accreditation-with-self-study-ideas.pdf


292    ATL A 2024 PROCEEDINGS

Association of Theological Schools. n.d. “About ATS.” Accessed 
September 21, 2024. https://www.ats.edu/About-ATS.

Association of Theological Schools. n.d. “Accreditation.” Accessed 
September 21, 2024. https://www.ats.edu/Accreditation.

https://www.ats.edu/About-ATS
https://www.ats.edu/Accreditation


Listen and Learn Sessions    293

ENDNOTES

1  The connection between ATS and Atla has existed for many years. As many 
know, Atla was born out of discussions within ATS, and there has traditionally 
been a good stable of Atla members who have served on evaluation commit-
tees. Historically, several Atla members have gone on to serve on the ATS staff, 
including Charles Willard, Bill Miller, Tom Tanner, Debbie Creamer, and Michael 
Hemenway.




