Zarah's post on the CPE got my brains working. I've had the honor of serving in the first ever CPE board as Secretary back in 1993 fresh from the board exams, if I'm not mistaken, with other respected librarians. Since the idea of a Continuing Professional Education for librarians was a novelty, there was no outcry whatsoever to its adherence. We'd get loads of applications each month we met.
Fast forward to 2010 and there is now an undercurrent questioning its necessity from what I gathered from Zarah's post and with upcoming PAARL forum weeks from now.
Here's my two cents worth. Professional education should definitely be part of one's development more so for librarians as part of lifelong learning and to catch up with technology that changes every so often. However, to limit the activities one might engage in and earn credits to become eligible for license renewal is another thing. I say limit because continuing education should not be a one-size -fits-all package.
Nothing much has changed on what activities are eligible for CPE credits from back then and I think this has to be improved and be made less imposing. I mean, come on. Be practical. Not everyone is interested in getting a Master's degree let alone a Ph.D. save for promotional reasons. Speaking and writing activities are for those who have the gift and the connections. Attendance to seminars and the like still seems to be the most popular method of earning credits and this is where the problem lies, budget.
But as I've written earlier, be practical. Much of what I've acquired over the years I got from reading stuff on the web and putting them into practice. And who benefited from these? The library I worked for, of course. This, I think should be the essence of continuing education. Not piling up on the credits.
So I appeal to the BFL to think out of the box and be less restrictive in defining activities to earn credit from or scrap the credits altogether. Take blogging for instance. There has been an increase in library-related blogs over the years and I say the librarians who maintain these blogs should be given credit for it.
Life is hard as it is and don't make the CPE an additional burden to bear.
Fast forward to 2010 and there is now an undercurrent questioning its necessity from what I gathered from Zarah's post and with upcoming PAARL forum weeks from now.
Here's my two cents worth. Professional education should definitely be part of one's development more so for librarians as part of lifelong learning and to catch up with technology that changes every so often. However, to limit the activities one might engage in and earn credits to become eligible for license renewal is another thing. I say limit because continuing education should not be a one-size -fits-all package.
Nothing much has changed on what activities are eligible for CPE credits from back then and I think this has to be improved and be made less imposing. I mean, come on. Be practical. Not everyone is interested in getting a Master's degree let alone a Ph.D. save for promotional reasons. Speaking and writing activities are for those who have the gift and the connections. Attendance to seminars and the like still seems to be the most popular method of earning credits and this is where the problem lies, budget.
But as I've written earlier, be practical. Much of what I've acquired over the years I got from reading stuff on the web and putting them into practice. And who benefited from these? The library I worked for, of course. This, I think should be the essence of continuing education. Not piling up on the credits.
So I appeal to the BFL to think out of the box and be less restrictive in defining activities to earn credit from or scrap the credits altogether. Take blogging for instance. There has been an increase in library-related blogs over the years and I say the librarians who maintain these blogs should be given credit for it.
Life is hard as it is and don't make the CPE an additional burden to bear.
4 comments:
uy gusto ko yan. yung sinabi mo na may credits ang library blogging! LOL
miss you!
dapat lang naman zarah dahil alam naman natin hindi madali mag-maintain ng blog di ba...ewan ko sila kung alam nila hehe
miss you too!
That CPE has become a mandatory requirement for license renewal (even when Congress has repealed it in the PRC Law - RA 8981 of 2000*) is now enshrined in PRC Resolution No. 2008-465, which has declared it as a "moral obligation" of every registered professional.
Is a "moral obligation" legal?
Not many realizes that the foundation of this mandatory requirement has been inserted in the Implementing Rules and Regulations of RA9246 way
back in 2004, four years before PRC Resolution 2008-465. I cite here the full text of Rule 3, Section 10 of this provision:
"Sec. 10. Renewal of License to Practice. A duly registered librarian shall renew his/her license every three (3) years after undergoing Continuing Professional Education (CPE). The total CPE units for registered librarians shall be sixty (60) for three (3) years. Any excess shall not be carried over to the next three year-period, except credit units earned for doctoral and masteral degrees. Attendance to at
least one (1) national conference/congress /training, etc. sponsored by accredited professional organization/ integrated professional association
within three (3) years is required of very professional librarian."
As to why it took 4 years for the BFL to decide to implement CPE is anybody's guess.
The last sentence in this provision likewise deserves some clarification, like:
* Does this requirement only refers to PLAI being the APO?
* Will attendance to one seminar/conference sponsored by a PLAI chapter duly accredited as a CPE provider, fulfill this requirement which should be within the 3-year period of renewal)?
However, the first question should be, "With the IRR of RA 9246 now
being fully implemented, do we still have a choice?"
And the final question is, "Is there anyone willing and ready to
question the legality of the PRC Resolution, or Rule 3, Sec. 10 of the IRR of 9246?"
Don't get me wrong, I believe in CPE. It's the mandatory character of the law that I find objectionable, and being "boxed into" what would constitute as CPE in terms of credit points based on the matrix designed by BFL.
Great post!
Your post is very informative and I have learned a lot from it.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts with your readers like us. Keep up the good work.
Post a Comment