I just wanted to make a few points (as someone who is a CILIP member,
works for a professional body with mandatory CPD, and has attended
Inter-Professional CPD Forum meetings):
- There are a wide variety of approaches to CPD by professional bodies -
there is no 'one size fits all'. For industries and professions that are
highly regulated (such as construction), it is more common to have
mandatory approaches. I wouldn't put CILIP in that category, but that's
not to say that mandatory CPD wouldn't have some value.
- What concerns me most is that CILIP's plans are not widely known by
the membership, so that members have not previously had a chance
(particularly before the decision was made) to engage with this debate.
With new systems like this that may be divisive, 'top-down' approaches
are arguably bound to lead to overtly negative reactions.
- How is this going to be delivered, supported and enforced? This is
perhaps crucial to successful adoption. There are plenty of e-portfolio
systems on the market, different approaches to CPD regulation, recording
and assessment, formal vs informal learning and so forth. I think it is
important for members to know how CPD will be most relevant,
sustainable, and beneficial to this profession.
Thanks,
Clare
-----Original Message-----
From: UKEIG: the UK eInformation Group [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
On Behalf Of Roger Farbey
Sent: 28 October 2009 14:58
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: CILIP compulsory CPD
Thanks for the responsers so far and particularly to Isabel for spelling
out some of the ramifications of this. I intend to respond to this fait
accompli in due course via the letters pages of CILIP Update (assuming
it is accepted for
publication) but I need to add a couple of points here 'from the other
side', ie from the point of view of the noncormformist. First, this is
probably the world's best kept secret. Considering this was discussed
and agreed in principle at CILIP Council in May 2008 and I found out
about it, by chance, a week ago. I wonder how many other members of
CILIP are actually aware of this? It was buried in the Council report on
pages 20-21 of CILIP Update (July/August
2008) under the dubious subheading 'Light touch' revalidation. How many
members then spotted the words 'but mandatory revalidation' in a
subsequent paragraph? I know I didn't. So not much of a 'conversation'
there then.
Secondly, I recognise that professional regulatory bodies insist on
mandatory CPD (GMC, GDC, Law Society etc). However, no one seems to
question the validity of the practise of CPD as a verifiable concept. If
Shipman was able to kill 200+ patients without being detected, how easy
is it to fake CPD? More to the point, what, exactly, does CPD compulsory
or otherwsie prove? That professionals are doing what, as professionals,
they do anyway. I know I do, what is in effect CPD, every day, in the
form of good practice.
Thirdly, let's immediately quash this nonsense about 'light touch'. This
is a joke and a very poor joke at that. No right minded professional
organisation will be satisfied with a so-called 'light touch' procedure
or at least not for long. So you read it hear first, light touch will
become heavy touch, the full-on version before too long. Light touch
simply means nothing. I would rather we, as librarians, weren't
patronised with a half-baked version and given the two options full
compulsory CPD (just like doctors, dentists and lawyers) or quit CILIP.
This at least would be a more honest approach.
If CILIP is serious about CPD let's have a full, open and frank debated
and perhaps even a referendum on it. With a whole issue of CILIP Update
devoted to Compulsory CPD (not light touch revalidation).
Finally, this is not intended as a dig at Isobel or her fellow Trustees.
This is a dig at a principle at stake. One of open and honest debate,
choice and not least, professionalism.
Thanks for reading this
Roger Farbey, FCLIP
**********************************************************************
This email and any files transmitted with it are intended solely
for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are
addressed. If you have received this email in error please
notify the sender.
Royal Institute of British Architects
66 Portland Place, London, England W1B 1AD
Charity Number: 210566
**********************************************************************
|