C&RL News December 2014 614

Academic libraries are being held more accountable to prove their value through 
quantifiable assessment. The University Li-
braries at Appalachian State are in the formal 
process of identifying, documenting, and quan-
tifying our contributions in a way that provides 
clear statements of our value to our internal 
and external stakeholders. As an organization, 
we are working to create an environment that 
values assessment and continuous improve-
ment. In a practical sense ACRL’s “Standards 
for Libraries in Higher Education”1 provides us 
with a framework to think strategically about 
our value, role, and contributions to institu-
tional effectiveness and assists us in our efforts 
to effectively communicate this importance to 
all of our constituents.  

The University Libraries have strong con-
nections with the standards. Our former dean, 
Mary Reichel, served as president of ACRL 
(2001-2002) and was a member of the ACRL 
Standards for Libraries in Higher Education 
Task Force. Our current dean, Joyce Ogburn, 
also served as president of ACRL (2011-2012) 
and was involved in the creation and promo-
tion of the standards released in 2011. 

In addition to our deans’ involvement, 
other library colleagues voiced an interest in 
incorporating the standards into our evalua-
tion and planning processes. Associate Dean 
Georgie Donovan asked select library faculty 
to choose one of the nine principles and give 
a brief presentation at a faculty meeting. 

Donovan, who had just finished chairing the 
university’s Southern Association of Colleges 
and Schools (SACS) Compliance Certification, 

thought this would be a great way to introduce 
the new principles and performance indicators 
to the faculty, and serve as a type of assess-
ment exercise. Faculty members presented on 
all nine of the principles over the spring and 
summer of 2013.  These presentations led to 
several discussions throughout the library on 
the importance of incorporating the standards 
into strategic planning efforts. 

 
Incorporating academic trends, issues, 
and the language of accreditation
As emphasized in the standards, academic 
libraries need to be aware of current trends 
and issues critical in higher education. Two 
important documents guiding our efforts are 
the University of North Carolina (UNC) System 
Strategic Plan 2013-2018,2 which outlines five 
priority goals for all 17 UNC system schools, 
and the Appalachian State University Strategic 
Plan, completed in 2014. The issues include 
increased institutional accountability tied to 
workplace needs and jobs received after gradu-
ation, program prioritization, and declines 
in state funding. In this current political and 
economic climate, it is imperative that libraries 
demonstrate their value to their institutions, 
particularly administrators and key stakehold-

Amanda Bird, Kelly Rhodes McBride, and Elizabeth Cramer

Modeling ACRL’s Standards for 
Libraries in Higher Education
A path to creating a culture of assessment

Amanda Bird is information literacy librarian, email: 
birdam@appstate.edu; Kelly Rhodes McBride is lead 
librarian for information literacy, email: mcbridekr@
appstate.edu; and Elizabeth Cramer is coordinator 
of bibliographic services, email: crameree@appstate.
edu, at Appalachian State University’s Belk Library and 
Information Commons
© 2014 Amanda Bird, Kelly Rhodes McBride, and Elizabeth Cramer

the way I see it



December 2014 615 C&RL News

ers. It could not be a better time for putting 
the standards into action.

The standards outline a path for academic 
libraries to align their work within the param-
eters of accreditation criteria for institutions 
of higher education, rather than develop a 
separate set of library standards. As a matter of 
fortunate timing, Appalachian’s Reaffirmation 
of Accreditation process for the SACS Com-
mission on Colleges began in fall 2010. The 
fact that our associate dean was chairing the 
University SACS Compliance Certification cre-
ated the opportunity for librarians to participate 
in a process that focused on institutional ef-
fectiveness at the university level. The libraries 
were tasked with identifying operational and 
learning outcomes, conducting assessment, 
and gathering data to measure our impacts, 
and use this information to make improve-
ments and changes as needed. This required 
an extensive review of the collections, budget, 
staffing, instruction programs, and services.

In developing our strategic plan, we will 
communicate and quantify our standards in a 
manner understandable and accepted by the 
larger academic body. Our experience in work-
ing through the Reaffirmation of Accreditation 
process, coupled with the fact that librarians 
have faculty status and are heavily involved 
in university service, assessment, and faculty 
governance, enable us to speak the language 
of accreditation. 

Strategies to combine the standards 
and strategic planning
We have a number of things in place that 
will help us incorporate the standards into 
the strategic planning process. Our previous 
Strategic Plan spanned 2008-2013, and since 
we had not received the UNC system and Ap-
palachian State strategic plans, we created a 
two-year Bridge Plan, 2013-2015.3 The Bridge 
Plan provides forward momentum and direc-
tion, giving us time to formulate a new strategic 
plan for 2015-2020.

The University Libraries’ Planning and As-
sessment Committee (PAC) plays another key 
role. The committee’s charge includes sup-
porting library strategic planning; developing, 

implementing, and reviewing library assess-
ments and action plans; and communicating 
and improving assessment efforts in the library. 
The committee is in the process of collecting 
and quantifying internal and external assess-
ment efforts and working with various teams 
in the library to foster greater participation in 
outcomes based assessment efforts.

Getting on board with assessment 
We want to spread the gospel of assessment, 
but our challenge is finding the most effec-
tive method for communicating the benefits 
of working within an assessment-planning 
cycle. Prompted by the standards, PAC identi-
fied targeted strategic initiatives in the Bridge 
Plan for focused development of performance 
indicators and measurable outcomes, followed 
by assessment and analysis of collected data 
for continued improvement. 

In following the seven assumptions ar-
ticulated in the standards, PAC worked with 
related teams, committees, and individuals 
to identify and select strategic performance 
indicators and user-centered outcomes, and to 
conduct quantitative or qualitative assessment 
for selected Bridge Plan objectives. In prepar-
ing for the creation of our 2015-2020 Strategic 
Plan, this process acclimates all of us to the 
outcomes-assessment model as illustrated in 
the standards.

Conclusion
Treating the “Standards for Libraries in Higher 
Education” as a “living” document is useful in
laying the foundation for strategic planning 
and demonstrating our value. We believe the 
intent of the standards is reflected in the fol-
lowing quote:

. . . guide academic libraries in advanc-
ing and sustaining their role as partners 
in educating students, achieving their 
institutions’ missions, and position-
ing libraries as leaders in assessment 
and continuous improvement on their 
campuses.

(continues on page 618)



C&RL News December 2014 618

Part 2, Analytic Report (U.S. Department of 
Health, Education and Welfare), http://babel.
hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015035420895 
;view=1up;seq=15.

7. U.S. Office of Education (1969), Library 
Statistics of College and University, Fall 1969, 
Part 2, Analytic Report (U.S. Department of 
Health, Education and Welfare), http://babel. 
hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.390150367895
20;view=1up;seq=66.

8. Edmon Low, “ACRL Legislation in 
1961,” C&RL 23, no.2 (1962): 112.

9. ACRL, “President’s Report, 1966/67,” 
C&RL News 28, no.4 (1967): 163.

10. Bronson Price and Doris C. Holladay, 
Library Statistics of Colleges and Universities: 
Fall 1969 Analytic Report (U.S. Department 
of Health, Education and Welfare, 1970), 
http://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp. 
39015036789520;view=1up;seq=5.

11. Robert B. Downs, “Crisis in Our Uni-
versity Libraries,” C&RL 22, no.1 (1961): 7.

12. The Federal Reserve Bank of Min-
neapolis has specific information on the 
CPI and inflation for all years in the 1960s, 
http://www.minneapolisfed.org/community 
_education/teacher/calc/hist1913.cfm.

13. ACRL, “ACRL Constitution and Bylaws 
Committee Report to the Board of Directors, 
June 1960,” C&RL 22, no.3 (1961): 224. 

14. ACRL, “ACRL President’s Report July 
1963,” C&RL 24, no.5 (1963): 427. 

15. ACRL, “Time Produces the Organiza-
tion. Annual Report of the ACRL President, 
1963/64,” C&RL 25, no. 4 (1964): 327. 

16. ACRL, 163. 
17. Edmon Low, 112-114.
18. Edward G. Holley, “Building a Firm 

Foundation: ACRL Leadership, 1939-1989,” 
C&RL News (1989): 465.

19. ACRL, “ACRL Report to Council, July 1961.” 
20. ACRL, 163. 
21. Charles Edward Hale, “The Origin and 

Development of the Association of College 
and Research Libraries, 1889-1960” (PhD 
diss., Indiana University, 1976), 187.

22. ACRL, “ACRL Board of Directors, Mid-
winter Conference Washington, D.C. 1969, 
Brief Minutes, January 30, 1969-10:00 a.m.,” 

C&RL News 30, no.2 (1969): 99. 
23. ACRL, “From the ACRL Executive 

Secretary,” C&RL News 29, no.5 (1968): 247.
24. ACRL, “ACRL Board of Directors 

Midwinter Meeting 1963, Brief of Minutes, 
January 30,” C&RL 24, no. 2 (1963): 149.

25. James O. Wallace, “Two-Year College 
Library Standards,” Library Trends 21, no. 2 
(1972): 227. 

26. ACRL, “ACRL Highlights, Annual Con-
ference, June 25-July 1, 1967.” 

27. ACRL, 1967.
28. ACRL, “Association of College and 

Research Libraries Highlights Midwinter 
Meeting, January 9-13, 1967.” 

29. ACRL, “ACRL Board of Directors 
Meeting, Atlantic City, Brief of Minutes, June 
26, 1969–8:00 a.m,” C&RL News 30, no.5 
(1969): 317.

30. CHOICE, “Second Annual Report, 
1964-1965.”  

The process has been slow, but we know 
that our grassroots approach will facilitate the 
incremental shift in our thinking that is neces-
sary to work within a culture of assessment 
for continued improvement and alignment 
with Appalachian State University and the 
UNC System.

Notes
1. “Standards for Libraries in Higher Edu-

cation,” American Library Association, Octo-
ber 2011, accessed November 10, 2013, www.
ala.org/acrl/standards/standardslibraries.

2. “Our Time Our Future: The UNC Compact 
with North Carolina. Strategic Direction 2013-
2018,” University of North Carolina, accessed 
November 10, 2013, www.northcarolina. 
e d u / s t r a t e g i c _ d i r e c t i o n / S T R AT E G I C 
_DIRECTIONS_2013-2018.pdf.

3. “Appalachian State University Library 
Bridge Plan, 2013-2015,” Belk Library & In-
formation Commons 2013, accessed Novem-
ber 10, 2013, www.library.appstate.edu/sites 
/library.appstate.edu/files/documents 
/university_library_bridge_plan_2013-2015.pdf. 

(Modeling ACRL’s Standards . . . cont. from 
page 615)