As reported elsewhere, CILIP is once again revising its Framework of Qualifications.
It’s not so long ago that the FoQ was revamped, with ACLIP joining MCLIP and new routes to Chartership being introduced.
The value of Chartership is a frequent matter of discussion. Some sectors value it, others patchily. It is a necessity for higher pay grades in some areas, not heard of in others. Whether it truly represents development, or is just an exercise in paper filling.
It is this that needs to be addressed. How can Chartership meaningfully be called a gold standard when it’s not a standard at all? And can CILIP afford, literally and metaphorically, consultant led navel gazing?
Already in HE, membership of the HE Academy is seen as a more worthwhile choice than Chartership. In the public libraries debate there are those who question CILIP’s role in setting qualifications standards.
CILIP needs to make more of a case for a system of library training and education before it tinkers with the FoQ. Involving other interested parties- university, employer and council bodies- could be a useful start. This would make library courses, and the Chartership process, more responsive to needs whilst maintaining a ‘long view’ flexibility.