Summary of the 19 recommendations in the EfC/Acumen.
The Framework of Qualifications and Accreditation Steering Group (FoQASG) met four times during 2008. At the last meeting on September 1st it was agreed to make the following recommendations to CILIP Council. The full report by the Steering Group is available on the Council webpages.
The summary of outcomes of all the Steering Group recommendations to CILIP Council
The page numbers refer to the original report by Education for Change / Acumen which is available here in PDF member only access.
FoQA Review: Summary of recommendations and outcomes
RECOMMENDATION 1
CILIP should initiate a systematic consultation and evidence-gathering exercise with a wide range of employers, focusing on what it is they want from the awards, and how they fit in the context of the changing employment practices. This should provide the foundation for a continuing employer engagement strategy
OUTCOME
That Council take on board work already done by the FoQA SG and consider integrating it into work on a wider pan-CILIP Employer Engagement Strategy
RECOMMENDATION 2
The current Revalidation award should be replaced by a lighter-touch, more collaborative approach to continuous professional development, which is nonetheless mandatory. The emphasis should be on personal development, quality learning outcomes, improving skills and competences and maintaining standards of practice. In our view, this would be more a shift of focus and emphasis than a complete revision of the principles and content of revalidation in its current form.
OUTCOME
Principles of new CPD scheme agreed. Task and Finish Group set up at September 1st 2008 to report to December Council.
RECOMMENDATION 3
The current Assessment Panels and the Chartership Board should be disbanded, removing a layer of procedure from the process of assessment. This does not, however, do away with the role of the assessors themselves, who will then be empowered to take final decisions on acceptance or rejection of portfolios, working as at present in pairs, with reference to a third assessor should the pair fail to agree.
OUTCOME
FoQASG recommended to Council that this should not be adopted. This was accepted by Council 24th July 2008
RECOMMENDATION 4
CILIP should recruit and maintain a smaller body of assessors (no more than 30), reflecting as wide a range of regional and specialist knowledge and experience as possible, who will assess portfolios for all levels of awards, only with FCLIP assessments reserved for a few suitably qualified and experienced individuals
OUTCOME
FoQASG recommended to Council that this should not be adopted. This was accepted by Council 24th July 2008.
RECOMMENDATION 5
CILIP should establish four fixed deadlines throughout the year for submission of each type of award portfolio, staggering them so that, for example, ACLIP applications are accepted in month one, MCLIP in month two and FCLIP in month three. This will allow a more evenly spaced and regular flow of portfolios for assessment to be sent to assessors
OUTCOME
FoQASG recommended to Council that this should not be adopted. This was accepted by Council 24th July 2008.
RECOMMENDATION 6
All candidate portfolios should be created submitted and circulated entirely and only as electronic documents either sent as zipped attachments to email or downloaded onto a CD-ROM.
OUTCOME
Recommendation was accepted (March 7th 2008) and is incorporated into Phase 2 of the Web/ICT Implementation Plan)
RECOMMENDATION 7
CILIP should move quickly to set up candidate registration and application procedures online
OUTCOME
Recommendation was accepted (March 7th 2008) and is incorporated into Phase 2 of the Web/ICT Implementation Plan
RECOMMENDATION 8
All documentation related to the awards including the outputs of the Career Development Group should be critically reviewed, revised and rewritten. Careful attention should be paid to the quality and consistency of all ‘nonofficial’ supporting material provided to candidates, and its provenance should be clearly indicated
OUTCOME
All web based instructions should be updated. Candidates will be kept fully informed about changes (September 1st 2008).
RECOMMENDATION 9
CILIP should review the roles of the Career Development Group and the Candidate Support Officers once the recommended changes to procedures and revision of the awards documentation have been implemented
OUTCOME
Responsibility for a process of critical review will fall to CDG, PTEG, and AMNC when other recommendations have been implemented (September 1st 2008).
RECOMMENDATION 10
Central administrative support for any candidate and mentor training events should be provided by a restructured Qualifications and Professional Development Department, as part of a greater emphasis on candidate support in general.
OUTCOME
It was noted that this is not part of the Review’s remit and will be taken forward by the CILIP CEO at the conclusion of the review (7th March 2008).
RECOMMENDATION 11
To underpin the whole mentor scheme, there needs to be dramatic and immediate improvements in the tools and procedures around matching mentors to candidates.
OUTCOME
Recommendation was accepted (March 7th 2008) and is incorporated into Phase 2 of the Web/ICT Implementation Plan Interim improvements have been made by more fully exploiting CILIP’s CARE database
RECOMMENDATION 12
As a matter of some urgency, the requirements of the Qualifications and Professional Development Department in relation to defining, accessing and using membership records should be analysed in order to ensure that those requirements are properly reflected in development plans for the CARE database.
OUTCOME
This is incorporated in the web/ICT programme business plan. Already improvements have been made by more fully exploiting CILIP’s CARE database. Analysis will be included in the Employer Engagement Strategy.
RECOMMENDATION 13
To progress the operation of the Framework on all these ICT-related fronts we strongly recommend that a dedicated ICT development officer should be recruited as soon as possible for the Qualifications and Professional Development Department on a fixed term contract.
OUTCOME
CILIP Database Manager appointed May 2009
RECOMMENDATION 14
CILIP should consider accrediting institutions instead of courses and, in so doing, should aim to build on the existing working relationships with the providers
OUTCOME
Recommended made to Council that this should not be adopted. This was accepted by Council 24th July 2008.
RECOMMENDATION 15
CILIP should, in a dialogue with providers of degrees in library and information studies, seek to design a package of benefits that could be offered to the institutions as part of the accreditation service, for which the institutions would pay an annual fee.
OUTCOME
unlikely to be an overall benefit to either CILIP or the higher education community by introducing charges. It may be appropriate to make a charge for overseas accreditations and recommended to Council 24th September 2008 that such charges be introduced.
RECOMMENDATION 16
As a first step to implementing the changes recommended in this Review, CILIP should establish a new Awards and Accreditation Department to replace the existing Qualifications and Professional Development Department.
OUTCOME
Agreed that this was not part of the Review remit and must be taken forward by CEO at the conclusion of the Review (7th March 2008).
RECOMMENDATION 17
A number of changes to the departmental staffing structure, roles and responsibilities should accompany the setting up of the new department.
OUTCOME
Agreed that this was not part of the Review remit and must be taken forward by CEO at the conclusion of the Review (7th March).
RECOMMENDATION 18
CILIP should establish a single Awards and Accreditation Board. The Board should be concerned with establishing CILIP’s awards and accreditation strategy and with setting policies for the implementation of the strategy. It will also provide a means of ensuring a line of accountability to CILIP Council.
OUTCOME
Recommendation to Council that this should not be adopted. This was accepted by Council 24th July 2008.
RECOMMENDATION 19
The current structure and level of fees for application for awards should remain unchanged.
OUTCOME
Current fee structure could be reviewed and has made recommendations for consideration by Council 24th September 2008.
Steering Group
Carol Barker, CDG Candidate Support Network
Linda Ferguson, PTEG Mentor Support Network
Isabel Hood, Trustee (Chair)
Dr Ian Lovecy, Chair CILIP Accreditation Board
Muriel Mitchell, Affiliated Members National Committee
Judy Broady-Preston, Trustee
Keith Wilson, Chair, CILIP Chartership Board
Contact: quals@cilip.org.uk