Professional Development & Consulting Standards

RE: Professional Development & Consulting Standards

2009-07-01T19:09:24Z

Dear Kathleen,

First of all, I would like to thank you and the committee for the hard work in retooling the Illinois Library System Standards. I have read both the revised version and the committee responses dated June 9, 2009. It is heartening that concerns can be voiced and taken into consideration.

I am a little confused by the committee's responses to Core services:

"Some respondents have expressed interest in a definition of 'basic or core services.' The core services will be identified and defined when the standards in their entirety near completion. The committee's initial thinking is that core services are offered for free or a nominal charge. The committee also will be discussing whether or not core services possibly differ from system to system. These issues are not yet resolved and are on the committee agenda for discussion."

I agree that core services should be offered for free or a nominal charge. Where I become confused is if core services change from system to system how could they be considered core? I was under the impression that it meant that each system provided these services. I could see the amount of the service provided changing, such as having a minimum number of programs per your members. I can see wanting to have minimum standards. It becomes a little tricky in that you want to continue to challenge the systems who are exceeding those standards with ease.

I also really like the fact that member libraries have responsibilities. I am not sure that member libraries are always aware of these responsibilities. Who is going to tell them? As was suggested previously of having repercussions for not attending trainings or taking full advantage of what the library systems offer, I would be hesitant to be punitive. I am the only certified librarian in the district with five schools. There may be a year in which I cannot take another day off professionally, but we still participate in interlibrary loan. Would this mean that my library is now not a "good" member? I do think there needs to be participation and giving back to the system at some level, but do we ever really take full advantage of what is offered us?

Thank you for your time and consideration,

Jeanné Lohfink
District Librarian, Beach Park CCSD #3
NSLS Board Member

RE: Professional Development & Consulting Standards

2009-06-22T01:11:51Z

Thank you for the opportunity presented to the library community to comment upon the proposed system standards. As a library trustee who also serves on a system board of directors, I have attended many high quality and timely programs offered by my library system. Some programs have been presented by very talented system staff members. Other programs have brought nationwide experts to our local library community including: parliamentarians, media specialists, and legal experts.

The proposed system standards will offer guidance for “identified and anticipated needs.” However, in order to optimize the practice usefulness of these standards, I would encourage the committee to expand the proposed standards to include definitions for specific phrases in the proposed standards, such as: “basic/core services,” “continuing education” and “cost recovery fee.” Additionally, clarification regarding the meaning of “most” as used in the phrase “most consulting and continuing education programs” would be appreciated. Would 51% of the programming meet the system standard’s definition of “most”? Or would the standard require something closer to 75% or 95% or more? These expanded definitions and clarifications of terms would provide valuable information for further comment and discussion regarding the proposed standards.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed system standards.

Kathy Caudill
President, Ela Area Public Library District Board of Trustees
Vice President, North Suburban Library System Board of Directors

RE: Professional Development & Consulting Standards

2009-06-19T15:26:43Z

I agree with the concerns expressed by others in this forum over the proposed revision that would require continuing education/professional development programs to be provided at no cost to member libraries. With system funding flat for almost two decades, revenue from the state is spread extremely thin for systems operations. At NSLS, we offer, as do other systems, innovative programming that attracts library professionals from member libraries as well as staff from libraries in other systems. In many cases, we partner with other systems. While systems do an excellent job at providing basic/core programs to members despite having limited resources to do so, continuing education enables systems to meet demand from Illinois libraries for timely training and education vital to what members need to stay abreast of current topics and trends in new library services, organizational effectiveness, and leadership. Continuing education should remain core to the mission of systems. At NSLS, we are able to meet this demand, but only by recouping programming costs. If the revised Systems Standards mandate continuing education at no cost, it is crucial that there be an accompanying increase in funding. Given the current and likely long term financial challenges for the state, this is unlikely. If that is the case, I strongly believe that the systems should be allowed to continue to deliver high quality continuing education on a cost recovery model.

Christopher Stewart
President, Evanston Public Library Board of Trustees
Board of Directors, North Suburban Library System

RE: Professional Development & Consulting Standards

2009-06-12T21:10:15Z

The proposed Illinois Library System Standard on Professional Development and Consulting is vaguely written even though it could be more precise. Why? Is the vagueness intentionally meant to provide the flexibility specified in the document entitled Working Assumptions Guiding the Revision of the Multitype Library System Standards October 2008? Assumption #4 of that document states: “Flexible standards allow for creative ways to provide basic and extended services.” Using vague terminology to provide flexibility seems to contradict the committee's intent as set forth in paragraph 3 of the same document which reads: "The committee also recognizes that both standards for library systems' services and clearly articulated expectations for system member libraries must be reflected in the revised standards documents.” Unless an accompanying document is also being prepared which provides clear language, the strength of this standard to the Illinois library community is compromised.

The ability of the Illinois State Library and the individual library system itself to fairly determine a system's compliance with any one of the 5 expectations is dependent on the use of clear language and the elimination of vague terms in the proposed standard.

One example of vague terminology failing the reader is expectation 'd'. It specifies that 'most' consulting and continuing education programs will be at no cost to member libraries. The term 'most' does not inform either the State Library or the Library System how much of what the term refers to. Are we counting programs or programming hours? Are we counting programs offered or only those that fill and actually run? Does the term “most” mean 50% or more, or is it some other unmentioned number hinted at, but not specified by use of the vague term “most'.

Will the future of system programming come to include program 'juggling' at reporting year end to ensure the balance of 'most'? For example, a nationally known speaker scheduled for a program during reporting month 12 could potentially spoil the required balance if some scheduled, cost free classes did not run that particular month. The expectations portion of the proposed standards, should contain clearly articulated language so that systems can accurately self-monitor and be evaluated fairly.

The shared understanding derived through the use of definite language is a benefit not only to the system standards revision process but to everything professional librarianship represents. The committee for the Illinois library Systems Standards thankfully, has already let us know , as evidenced by the very existence of this discussion forum that there is a desire for the library community to 'be on the same page' regarding the system standards.

Respectfully Submitted,

Kathy Berman
Prospect Heights Public Library Trustee
Board of Directors, North Suburban Library System

RE: Professional Development & Consulting Standards

2009-06-12T01:20:03Z

Thank you for your work on this document, and for the opportunity to comment and critique your work. You are setting the model of transparency that we can all aspire to achieve.

I echo the concerns that others have so eloquently expressed regarding the use of the words “no cost” for continuing education programs. In the past year I have had the honor of being director of two different public libraries located in two different library systems. The type and cost of the continuing education programs offered in my current system are very different from what was offered by my previous system. What is most important is that both systems did/do a great job of meeting the needs of their membership.

Perhaps the committee is optimistic about future funding of the State Library and Illinois Library Systems, but I feel now is not the time to place cost recovery restrictions on the systems. It is amazing what the State Library and the Illinois library systems have been able to do with flat and/or decreased budgets over the past several years. They have had to make some very tough decisions. The cost related to programming should be the decision of the systems based on their membership's needs and priorities.

RE: Professional Development & Consulting Standards

2009-06-11T18:52:10Z

I have read the draft of the Professional Development & Consulting Standards and I am concerned with c) and d) in Expectations, especially: "Most consulting and continuing education programs will be at no cost to member libraries. However, Systems may charge a cost recovery fee for specialized programs presented by speakers not associated with Systems or the Illinois State Library." While there is good intent behind this, I believe the Expectation places undue restriction on Systems. I wear many hats in the library field: public library trustee, system board director, recent MLS graduate, and new librarian. My experience with professional development through NSLS has been invaluable over the years as I have sought to acquire new knowledge and skills in order to be effective in all of my library roles. NSLS does offer some free programming, but also brings in nationally reputable and renowned speakers and consultants on a cost-recovery model. Without this, NSLS would not be able to provide the kind of top-notch professional development programs currently offered to member libraries. These programs provide outstanding professional development opportunities and bring in speakers that would normally only be available at national or state conferences. If Systems are required to make "most" of their consulting and continuing education programs free, I don't see how high quality, cost-effective programming can be sustained.
Please weigh this carefully in your decision-making. I think that this system standard is one of the most important, along with resource sharing.
Thank you for giving us the opportunity to comment on these proposals.
Megan Ower
NSLS Board Director
200 West Dundee
Wheeling, IL 60090

RE: Professional Development & Consulting Standards

2009-04-21T21:40:44Z

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the individual standards as they are promulgated.

With regard to the draft Professional Development and Consulting standard, I would appreciate knowing the committee's thinking regarding combining these two into one standard. In the current standards they are separate. I am wondering if the thinking was that both involved learning: in one case, one-on-one learning and in the other case, group learning. If so, I think this approach misses a critical point. These standards are about two distinct areas of work undertaken by regional library systems. The work of professional development and the work of consulting are very different from each other. In some systems, some of the same staff members do both. But in all cases, each of these services is an outreach to members necessitating different analysis, different planning, and different goals. Putting the two together denigrates the importance of each of them, in my view. Additionally and speaking only for the North Suburban Library System (NSLS) these two together account for about 50% of our state grant.

I am concerned with the type of reporting that would be required. The reporting seems to focus on counting work done by system staff in facilitating professional development and consulting. But the reporting fails to come to grips with what difference it makes if staff in member libraries attends professional development events or receives any sort of consulting assistance from system staff. I don't have any bright ideas re how to correct this but it just appears to be a collection of statistics with no attention given to what difference the two services have made.

I am grateful that there have already been several comments about the negative effect of requiring "most" of the professional development events offered by the system to be free. This approach assumes a model in which system staff are themselves the trainers. While that might work in some regional library systems, it is not what is happening now and at least here in NSLS, it would cut participation dramatically. Many NSLS libraries are well-funded and staffs attend conferences and hire consultants and expertise as needed. While I am sure NSLS members respect NSLS staffers, it is not likely they would be interested in attending sessions here at the system center to hear from us even if the sessions were free. Our members are sophisticated and it is challenging to present a series of professional development events and activities that attract and interest them. Is it the intent of this standards revision process to change the way systems are providing professional development currently?

Finally one of my most serious concerns is the committee's stated intent to promulgate at least six standards. Currently regional library systems are required to be responsive to four standards: consulting, continuing education, delivery, automation/resource sharing. We have not had an increase in funding since 1989, or twenty years ago. Much in our world has changed since then. If we are having trouble providing services to meet four standards, it would seem almost impossible to provide services to meet six standards, one of which is an amalgam of two of the existing standards and already consumes half of our NSLS system grant. It begs the question of whether these standards are envisioned as a floor of services so that system members in Shawnee and in North Suburban can expect to receive approximately the same level of service. Or are these standards aspirational? Do they represent areas of work systems might undertake? The latter approach will allow systems to be very different from each other. I had understood that one of the reasons for undertaking this revision was so that systems would be more alike and to increase accountability and to make us more understandable to state officials. By creating a set of standards that includes areas of work that we are not currently engaged in and certainly do not have the money to pursue, it doesn't seem like it is a path to system standardization, if that was what was wanted. But perhaps I don’t understand.

Thank you for the opportunity to share my thoughts on the process and on this particular standard.

Sarah Ann Long
Executive Director
North Suburban Library System
200 W. Dundee Road
Wheeling, IL 60090
847 459 1300 X 7125
slong@nsls.info
www.librarybeat.org

RE: Professional Development & Consulting Standards

2009-03-19T20:01:15Z

Dear Kathleen,

One of the strengths of Illinois library systems has been its continuing education component. Our library relies on the array of workshops that are provided locally, which saves our resources both time-wise and financially.

In the "Expectations" section, I am advocating for locally defined “core classes” and also would like to see the scope of the “specialized programs“ redefined to permit systems to structure continuing education locally that best addresses its own members' needs, even if it is on a cost-recovery basis. It does not seem realistic to expect that CE by and large could be provided at no cost.

We are missing a critical opportunity for education and enrichment if we depend only on our local libraries for instruction and content. I will be disappointed if these standards serve to limit a system’s ability to provide speakers and instructors whose perspectives broaden our knowledge and challenge our staffs.

RE: Professional Development & Consulting Standards

2009-03-05T22:03:58Z

My concern about requiring systems to provide continuing education to its members at low or no cost to the members is that my library staff will lose cost-effective access to nationally known speakers who are experts in the library field and trend spotters from other disciplines. Although we can't afford to send many of our staff members to national conferences because of the high registration, travel, and lodging costs, we can afford to send nearly everyone who is interested to programs offered within 10 miles of our library. Each year our system polls staff members who have attended these national programs for their choice of the best speakers and/or programs. The system then offers these speakers/programs to us forreasonable and affordable fees. Without this service, our staff members would either have to go without or be exposed to far fewer of the brightest and best in our profession. So, rather than being a cost-savings to our library, this standard requirement would actually cost us more, in terms both of dollars and lost opportunities.

RE: Professional Development & Consulting Standards

2009-02-27T19:35:18Z

Great work overall!

I, too, am concerned about the definition of "basic/core programs" in the Expectations section (c), as well as the word "most" in section (d) below it, which states:
"Most consulting and continuing education programs will be at no cost to member libraries."

As a former system consultant, I know that the continuing education offered at systems is varied. Some systems provide extensive CE on a cost-recovery basis, and by doing so, are able to offer much more variety and depth in their continuing education programs. I would hate to see some systems forced to cut out these offerings by standards that require them to offer "Most" of their programs at no cost. I would argue that the word "most" needs to be changed to "basic." And I agree with the respondent who suggested that each system be allowed to define what "basic" means for their members.

Jeannie Dilger-Hill, Director
La Grange Public Library

RE: Professional Development & Consulting Standards

2009-02-06T17:38:44Z

Dear Kathleen and members of the Team for the “Proposed Illinois Library System Standards on Professional Development and Consulting”:

Congratulations on your draft document – clearly progress is being made and I thank you for you’re your efforts and for asking for feedback from the IL library community. I hope you get many interesting responses to help guide you and add depth to your final product.

There are five points I’ve thought of to share, and details are below for your consideration.

1) To me, the single most important missing component in the document is a statement of the roles and responsibilities of the IL State Library. I believe the State Library should be given credit for the funding they provide for this very important component of the regional library systems. In fact, I think the very first paragraph should include an acknowledgement of the IL State Library funds:

“Illinois Library Systems staff, utilizing funding from the IL State Library, will offer member library staff and library governing officials of all types of libraries opportunities to improve their knowledge, skills and performance through one-on-one advice and continuing education programs targeted to meet identified and anticipated needs.”

Further, some of the responsibilities that are “all encompassing” ought to be handled by the State Library, rather than the IL Systems or its Members. Here are three items I think the IL State Library’s responsibilities ought to include:

Illinois State Library Responsibilities
o Appropriate funding to implement objectives (nothing happens w/o funding!)
o Work collaboratively with staff in other library systems to identify staff expertise and share that expertise between/among systems to ensure that consulting services and continuing education are delivered consistently, equitably and cost effectively statewide. Create a knowledge inventory and develop methods for informal information sharing.” – (pulled from Item “C” from “IL Systems Responsibilities” section). This is very important but really, who takes the responsibility? As written, it’s too vague, and no clear responsibility is assigned. You can’t have each system doing this – redundant and a waste of time. Would be most appropriately done as a centralized function for all by the IL State Library.
o A report on intersystem collaboration on conferences, consulting and programming (pulled from “Assessments” section). The IL State Library is in the ideal position to do this. As a taxpayer, I want to know the total results – was the money well spent? What did it accomplish for Illinois libraries, and ultimately, Illinois residents who pay for this.

2) The “Expectations” section reads to me more like a list of responsibilities / tasks, rather than expectations / outcomes. Expectations are what you intend to accomplish; something concrete and achievable - not how you will get there. I think of expectations as the “What’s”, not the “How’s”. And, expectations must be something measurable, so you can clearly see whether or not you have achieved them at assessment time.

Further, by listing these tasks as the expectations, you limit the ability to “think out of the box” and come up with new and fresh ways to meet the goals / objectives / expectations of this function – educating librarians and creating smarter libraries (or whatever the true goals are that you expect from professional development and consulting).

Think about what you expect to achieve through this function and funding. While this may not be exactly on-target for your document, here is a basic example of an expectation that could be measured for success – something achievable and measurable:
o Year over year, Illinois libraries will incorporate more technology tools into their repertoire than libraries in any other state.

3) Certain sections of the document are very vague, (maybe on purpose?), but to me it makes the document come across as weak.
Examples:
- Under Expectation “C” – “Basic/core programs and consulting provided by system staff will be offered at no cost to members. This will include working with member libraries to meet published standards, and site-visits to member libraries as necessary” – what constitutes a basic / core program? Define it.
- Under IL Library System Responsibilities “H” – “Provide professional development opportunities for system staff” - too vague, so ultimately could be ignored. This is an extremely important aspect of system responsibilities, in my view equally as important as providing service out to the members. The vagueness of this statement, and being listed last, is like a last minute thought, an add-on, if you will. If the System Staff are not constantly learning and staying on top of their game, we all lose.

4) Member responsibilities – how do you plan to make members accountable for these? Please spell it out, or perhaps change the verbiage away from “responsible” - a very rigid word…

Also, verbiage: “Member Library Staff shall: [“Staff” - very vague word – do you mean the library Director? If someone is “responsible”, who exactly is it?]

5) Assessments.

Who is actually doing an “assessment”? None of the tasks listed in this section is an assessment in itself, but just plain gathering data. In my opinion, a better assessment than gathering numbers of programs, attendees, etc. would be how have the librarians / libraries in the state improved as a result of all this training / consulting / programming. This is ultimately what you are trying to achieve, right? People can attend lots of classes, etc., and you can count numbers, but what does this really tell you???

Does someone (the state library, perhaps, hopefully?!?) have an assessment tool it uses to determine something with all this data? Further, once a real assessment takes place, to whom is it distributed? The public, who ultimately pay for it? I think this should be spelled out as part of the entire process.

What really counts is if and how libraries use the new knowledge and information they have gained from professional development and consulting services from the Regional Library Systems. Only then do you know if it was time and money well spent.

Thanks again for the opportunity to comment.
Best wishes,

Crystal Megaridis
Manager, Library Services, Praxair, Inc.
Trustee, Board of Trustees, Indian Prairie Public Library District
Director, Board of Directors, MLS

RE: Professional Development & Consulting Standards

2009-02-03T20:22:11Z

There seems to be a lot of "reports" that the systems are going to be required to prepare. I understand the need to be held accountable, but with budgets so tight, and staff already scrambling to handle the everyday training and consulting, I don't know how these reports are all going to be tabulated and prepared without sacrificing other important duties. Just something to consider, if your really want these standards to be able to be followed.

Along with that, and to echo a previous posting -- how come the individual libraries aren't responsible for any reports? There seems to be no consequences for libraries not completing the required professional development. Maybe that's in another section of the standards?

RE: Professional Development & Consulting Standards

2009-02-03T15:16:58Z

As a current public library trustee and former system board member and officer, I welcome these standards. Board members often have a difficult time assessing the effectiveness of the organizations they govern in delivering, or receiving, the services those organizations provide or use. Unfortunately, I see some problems that are not clearly addressed within these standards.

1. Unless additional rules will be published elsewhere of which I am not aware, there really is no enforcement of any of these standards. Although it is nice to believe that all member libraries will participate and cooperate with their respective systems, in many instances the level of participation is often disappointing and makes the meeting of the system side of the standards difficult to achieve. Public libraries are required to be members of the system that serves their geographical area in order to receive state grant funds. Yet, to my knowledge, no public library has ever been denied funds because it has not been an active participant in system sponsored activities.

2. As mentioned in an earlier post, there is no definition of basic/core training. If this is to be locally defined, then say so, or else refer to an appendix, or a reference to the appropriate rule making process. I understand that the definition of basic or core may be different for different types of libraries or the different levels and functions of staff within. But not defining these terms will make evaluation across systems difficult because there will be no defined basis for comparison.

3. Even if the direct cost of a program is free for member libraries, the indirect costs, especially for smaller public libraries and school libraries, may make attendance prohibitive. Lack of reimbursement for travel and staffing needs are often cited as reasons for not attending a training session even when the training is viewed as extremely valuable. Systems need to be more creative in selecting venues and start times in order to attract as many participants as possible. This should be reflected in the standard.

4. Feedback is an important component in judging the success of a training event. However, it is very subjective. Especially for core/basic training, a more reliable measure of effectiveness is the pretest-post test methodology. Perhaps the standards are correct in not specifying the methods of evaluation, but a statement expressing the need to apply appropriate and objective means of evaluation should be added.

5. Although system consultants must be top-notch professionals, there often are professional librarians with specific skills, or better teaching methods, at the member libraries. The systems should be encouraged to tap into this resource.

I thank the task force for their hard work and the opportunity for me to share my comments. I hope these observations are useful.

Rob Kepka
President, Board of Trustees
Addison Public Library

RE: Professional Development & Consulting Standards

2009-01-30T19:35:49Z

I echo Beckys comments in general, but especially the section on membership responsibilities. I think this is a responsiblity that through the years has slowly fallen by the wayside. The system boards and staff do a phenomenal job of keeping a finger on the pulse of what is happening and about possible future trends, but unless they get feedback directly from the membership, they are more apt than not to miss something that may be of use to members. It is the systems responsibility to create a welcoming atmosphere and vehicles in which to garner and receive feedback, but it is also the memberships responsibility to share ideas and respond to surveys and calls for participation in creating a strong relevant system.

Thank you for all your dedication and hard work on this project!

RE: Professional Development & Consulting Standards

2009-01-26T21:28:01Z

I have looked over the System Standards from both a school library member, and ISLMA Standards Chair, and an ex-System President perspective.

The expectations listed are essential. Consulting with individual libraries, library visits, and CE at no or low cost really is a top priority as budgets get tighter.

There can't be enough sharing and collaborating between systems in my opinion. I was very pleased to see this concept stated again and again in these standards. Around the state we have talented people willing to present professional development to multiple systems, state organizations, etc. These standards really stress the need for cooperation among us all.

I also appreciate the membership responsibilities. It's not all give. The systems need the members to take part in system workshops, programming, etc. The value statements we received at one time was an excellent way to show the value of belonging to a system to our administrators, boards and legislators. Anyone who had a system person come out to do site visits and/or consulting would really show a BIG value to being a member!

Under assessment, I would think that other Systems would be interested in the CE event statistics, contact hours, etc. That could only add to future sharing around the state and a good snapshot of who is doing what.

Thanks for giving us the chance to comment. Great job!

RE: Professional Development & Consulting Standards

2009-01-26T21:12:24Z

I have reviewed the Professional Development and Consulting Revised Standards. I think they are well thought out and clearly demonstrate the responsibilities of the Systems and member libraries and staff. Kudos to the creators of this document!

RE: Professional Development & Consulting Standards

2009-01-26T16:00:50Z

I'm curious as to the definition of "basic/core" programs that is in the document, and what "published standards" would be considered. Depending on the type of library, the definition of "core" and the standards to be met could vary widely. Did the committee discuss any of these definitions?

Thanks for the hard work.

Professional Development & Consulting Standards

2009-01-23T18:03:12Z

Your comments are welcomed regarding the proposed standards for Professional Development & Consulting..