The consultants [Nancy Bolt and Judy K. Howard] believe that Minnesota should be commended for the philosophy and dedication that supports the Minnesota Voluntary Certification Program (MVCP). Of the six programs reviewed as part of this project, MVCP seems to be the most sophisticated and conceptually based certification program for library support staff.
The features that merit this recognition are:
This report [An Evaluation of the Minnesota Voluntary Certification Program submitted December 31, 2006] contains information from an online survey, focus groups, and individual interviews to determine the status of the program, concerns from participants and administrators associated with the program, the effectiveness of the program, and the value of the program to the libraries, staff, and library users in the state of Minnesota.
The original vision of the MVCP is supported today as when it was first developed in the 1990's. The need for continuing education in the state of Minnesota is a necessity to provide services to the residents of the state. The MVCP is an integral part of this continuing education.
Participants in the multiple data gathering activities were asked in several ways about the value and benefit of the MVCP. They were asked if they were satisfied with it; what the benefits were to the participants and to the library (and by extension to the public served by the library); and what the strengths were of the program. The online surveys showed that both managers and MVCP participants felt that the program prepared library support staff to serve the public better and to serve them with more confidence. It showed that both managers and participants themselves (particularly graduates) were very satisfied with the program. Other strengths of the current program mentioned were building confidence in participants, the competencies, and the quality of the workshops and the presenters.
However, definite changes should be implemented in order to provide the training necessary for library support staff. After collecting the data from the electronic survey, focus groups, and through individual interviews, the consultants offer 19 recommendations. They are summarized below.
The report includes recommendations for:
Recommendation 1: Keep the current vision for the Minnesota Voluntary Certification Program.
All of the focus groups and most of those interviewed made statements that showed basic agreement with the current vision. An additional comment was often made that the purpose was to provide consistent library service across the state.
Recommendation 2: Reinstate the CLIME Committee with representatives from library organizations offering Continuing Education (CE) to provide overall coordination for CE and support for MVCP.
There are multliple organizations planning and delivering continuing education in Minnesota. When the CLIME Committee was in existence, different types of libraries and different library organizations were represented on the Committee. This provided the opportunity to share information, coordinate CE events, collaborate on planning of large and small CE activities, and schedule CE events to avoid conflict of dates. A committee such as CLIME is still needed and should be reappointed.
Recommendation 3: The consultants recommend that one of the following scenarios be implemented. The consultants recommend implementing Scenario 1 and offer two other scenarios for alternative consideration:
Scenario 1: Minnesota State Library Services should assume primary responsibility for the MVCP and make changes recommended in this report.
Scenario 2: Replace MVCP with a requirement for all non-MLS who work in libraries to take What is Library Service?
Scenario 3: Continue MVCP as it currently is operated with no changes.
One issue explored in all of the focus groups and interviews was who should be the official sponsor of MVCP. Although the questions was phrased in different ways, the overwhelming conclusion was that the State Library Services (SLS) should assume responsibility for the administration of MVCP, either directly or through a management contract with another agency. The administration should cover all aspects of managing the MVCP program including marketing, curriculum design, competency revision, data keeping, student tracking, etc. The actural delivery of workshops could be done by the SLS or could be contracted out to a Regional System or some other entity.
If SLS does not wish to make the commitment to MVCP, two other scenarios are offered. One would institute a minimal continuing education requirement to all public librry support staff by requiring an Introducation to Library Service course (an updated and renamed "What is Library Service"). The third scenario would be to allow the MVCP to continue as it is currently implemented, knowing that while much of it is valid and successful; flaws in the program will undoubtedly reduce participation over the years.
Recommendations 4 and 5 ask SLS to commit to funding MVCP at a level that will make it successful and to include the MVCP in the new statewide Strategic Plan being written and in the new Public Library Standards.
The consultants asked each focus group how they would recommend MVCP being funded. All said the administration of the program should be funded at the state level, either by state or federal funds. Continuing education workshops can be funded by LSTA grants for Round Robin activities or by individual library organizations. One indicator of priority would be to include continuing education and the MVCP in the new Strategic Plan being written and to continue inclusion of the MVCP in the revision of the Public Library Standards.
Recommendation 6: Develop a program to encourage more tangible rewards for MVCP participants.
One of the significatnt barriers to partticipation in the program is the lack of tangible rewards. It was hoped at the beginning of the program that graduates would receive either pay reaises or promotions as a result of graduation from the program. This has not happened. Local libraries and both consolidated and federated systems should work to develop a program to encourage tangible rewards in cooperation with SLS.
Recommendation 7: The Cetification program should remain only for public library support staff until changes in the program are considered successful and then a decision can be made whether to develop specific competencies for academic or school library support staff.
There has been discussion over the years of expanding the MVCP to include academic and school librarians. Attempts to do so have not been successful. The current competencies and workshops are heavily oriented toward public librarians and this should remain the audience at the current time.
Recommendations 8 through 17 deal with ways to improve the current MVCP program to make it more successful.
A major barrier to participation in the program is the perceived amount of homework. The current organization of homework assignments discourages prompt attention to homework and timely feedback on its adequacy. There are no guidelines or rubrics to guage the amount of homework that is acceptable for each assignment. Recommendation 8 makes suggestions for how the homework assignments might be revised to be less of a barrier to participation. Recommendation 9 calls for the design of a curriculum that will allow MVCP participants to complete the certification progam in a timely fashion. Recommendation 10 calls for consistency in MVCP administrative policies as they currently seem to be based on personal circumstances and are not consitent.
During the focus group inerviews, the fact that the MVCP is competency-based and the competencies themselves were praised highly. However, there was also a suggestion that after five years, it was time to review the competencies. Recommendation 11 asks that the competencies be revised with special attention to youth services, management, and technology.
A major complaint of CE providers was the perceived slowness of getting workshops approved. A similar complaint was made by MVCP particpants who were taking a workshop on their own to meet a competency. Recommendation 12 calls for a revision in the workshop review process so that a decision can be made within a short period of time. Along these same lines, there was increased interest in online courses and Recommedation 13 asks for more attention to be paid to this delivery mechanism.
The MVCP website has much information that is valuable but also much information that is no longer correct or timely. Recommendation 14 calls for a complete review and revision of the website and a plan for it to be kept up-to-date by one person with the knowledge and authority to do so.
Much time was spent in developing a Career Renewal program that has not been marketed or implemented. Recommendation 15 asks that the Career Renewal program not be implemented and that its combination with MVCP be considered when that program is reviewed. As mentioned above, there is high praise for the MVCP competencies and Recommendation 16 would keep the requirement that MVCP participants have to prove mastery in all of the competencies. Recommendation 17 calls for a continuation of the current method of assessing student work though homework. No other assessment method was suggested that gained any support.
The last two recommendations deal with the credibility of the program (Recommendation 18) and with the development of a comprehensive marketing program (Recommendation 19). The program should be marketed to both potential participants and to library directors and managers, Boards of Trustees, friends of the library, city officials and public at large.
Summary of Recommendations