>===== Original Message From Dave Guest <[log in to unmask]> =====
>Playing devil's advocate (after recently chartering after more years
>than I care to think about) I am not entirely happy about chartering.
>Does it really provide evidence of our continuing professional
>development or is it the practice element of a theory based course? Do
>those who have chartered continue the process or do they play lip
>service to departmental CPD schemes?

This is exactly why I think revalidation is a good idea :-) And there's
nothing to stop us getting involved with CILIP to the extent that we have some
influence in changing the criteria for Chartering if we're not sure it
demonstrates what we'd wish it to.

<snip>
>So what does chartership give us apart
>from the satisfaction of jumping through hoops? Our profession is not
>protected, you are not better renumerated and it gives no real
>indication of ability to do the job. Where is the evidence that
>chartership is effective in developing the individual & the profession?

Well, just look at us two Dave ;-) We're developed individuals who I believe
will be doing the profession some good :-) But seriously, a search through the
list archives will easily demonstrate that revalidation is something I'm happy
to see *extremely* animated discussion on! I'm certainly intending to jump
through the voluntary revalidation hoops ("how high, Marion?" ;-) as I do get
a sense of personal achievement out of it. Last year I took a gym instructor's
qualification even though I have no intention of doing it as a job (I'd never
earn enough to make it worth my while - now THERE's a low paid group of hard
working people) because I wanted to get the personal satisfaction of having
something formal to show for all the knowledge I'd picked up through many
years of weight training as a hobby. I'm just that sort of person.

>It is refreshing that people new to the profession should be
>enthusiastic but they should also challenge & question the norms rather
>than just accepting them.

Oh yes I agree. I've challenged plenty of norms wherever I've worked. I have
something of a reputation for it ;-) But challenging the norms effectively
doesn't have to mean upsetting and offending people. You catch more bees with
honey than vinegar. Not that my workmates call me Honey (well, not usually ;-)

>Finally removing a pain may be quick but addressing the source of the
>pain will be more effective.

I agree, and it has taken a long time (years) to reach this decision, with
much effort by myself and others behind the scenes to convince the source of
the pain of the wisdom of moderating language, tone, etc. before taking the
step of removal from the list. In fact several people have been attempting to
"address the source of the pain" for longer and in more ways than you are
probably aware. However, after so long, and when it is proven to be causing
pain/discouragement/even deterrent to others then a decision, regretfully, has
to be made.

>PS Any candidates who wish to visit the Lanchester Library at Coventry
>will be more than welcome.

That's a very kind offer Dave.

Lesha