STANDARDS FOR LIBRARY EDUCATIONIN BURMA, CEYLON, INDIA AND PAKISTAN

Suggests a set of common standards for libraryeducation in the four countries. The maintenance ofstandards can be the responsibility of each country'suniversity organizations like the University GrantsCommission in India; the Inter- University Board orproposed University Grants Commission in Pakistan;the National Council of Higher Education in Ceylon;and the Universities Central Administration Office inBurma. As a prelude to the actual spelling out of theproposed standards a brief resume of the comparablepractices with regard to standards for library educa-tion as they obtain in the United Kingdom. the UnitedStates and Latin America. is abo given.

The period from. Dickinson to Ranga-nathan has shown a strong British influence onthe educational system.s of Burrn a, Ceylon.India and Pakistan. In fact, the m.odern lib-rary m.ovem.ent as also that of m.odern educa-tion in these countries owe their existence tothe "m.ildly beneficial adm.inistration" ofBritish rule. This British influence is 80 deep-rooted that even independence did not dim.inishit. Burma attempted to make a breakthroughin 1964; but even so, it codtinues to follow t,heolder patterns of education. Library educa-tion had, therefore, to fit within such a sys-tem of education.

Library development followed a similarpattern in each country. University libraries.although not developed simultaneously in allthe four countries. received better treatment;more money was available for the developm.entof their collections, and their librarians weresent abroad for training. British officials,who at one tim.e found it expendient to send thebook treasures of these countries to London,were responsible for the development of someof the important librarieA in the area, whichtoday, by and large, have become the nucleus

Anis KhurshidS. 2/21 SaudabadKarachi-27, Pakistan

of the country's library development. Amongthem. were the former hnperial Library (nowthe National Library of India) in India; thePunjab Public Library in Pakistan; Colom.boMuseum Library in Ceylon; and. Bernard FreeLibrary (m.erged with the National Library) inBurm.a. With the attainment of independence.and subsequent emphasis on industrialization.special libraries also appeared on the scene.However, despite the identical trends of deve-lopm.ent, there is an im.balance in the librarysituation of the four countries. While in Indiaand Pakistan, the library developm.ent broughtabout the establishment of library associationsto carry forward the good work done for theprom.otion of libraries, similar developm.entsin Burma and Ceylon did not establish anyassociation. Burm.a had to wait until 1958 tostart a library association, and even that be-lated developm.ent was short-lived. (PossiblyBurma's failure in this respect lies in itsattem.pt to organize a national library associa-tion instead of starting local associations, suchas in India and Pakistan, to prepare a profes-sional climate in the country and to ensureeffective cooperation among the librarians.)Ceylon took another two years to found a na-tional association on the island. The sm.all-ness of the country and the government's sup-port, however, enabled it to create profes-sional spirit for the continued existence of theAssociation.

Thus lagging behind in professionalactivities, Burma and Ceylon aho lacked adynamic leadership. such all in India. Theuniversity libraries in both countries. althoughrelatively as well organized all their counter-parts in India and Pakistan, failed to provideany leadership while this much needed leader-ship in the neighbouring countries had swung

The paper is based on author's Ph. D. thesis submitted to the Faculty of GraduateSchool of L ibary and Information Sciences. University of Pittsburgh. in June 1969.

Vol 17 No 1-2 Mar-June 23

ANTS KHURSHID

the pace of library development to the advan-tale of the entire profes sion. The MadrasUniversity Library was instrumental. amongother things. for the passage of the MadrasPublic Library Act; Pakistani Universities.within their limitations. contributed to the de-velopment of respectable prolrammes forlibrary education.

The retarded development of libraries inBurma and Ceylon had adversely affected thelibrary education programmes of these twocountries as well. and their faUure was largelydue to the departure from the pattern esta-blished in India and Pakistan. Library educa-tion in Burma began with partial pr ogr arnrne s ,In Ceylon it was started simultaneously both bythe university and professional association.while in India and Pakistan early attempts weredirected at starting junior levels of trainingboth by the universities and the professionalassociations. When respectable status andsalary was established for the librarians inthese countries. then cm1ydegree courseswere started; graduates were able to get suita-ble jobs coznmensurate with their qualifications.Thus it waap osaibl e later in both the countriesto offer even Ph. D. programmes.

However. the library developrnerrta in alltile four countries took their directions fr omone common sources. i. e .• the colonial adminis-tration. The force and vitality of these effortswere more or less the same. Only the pre-vailing professional attitude in each countrybrought about different results. To catch upwith India and Pakistan. Buzrna and Ceylon will 'have to learn f r orn the experiences of theirneighbouring countries. For one thing theymust learn that professional post-Bachelor'scourses at university level are as impor-tantfor both Buzrna and Ceylon as they are forIndia and Pakistan and. for that matter , else-where in the world. Once library trainingclasses at universities are started in Burznaand Ceylon. they would not be placed differentlyfrom India and Pakistan; since the syatem s ofeducation in all the four countries bear strongsimilarities. Also because the trends of lib-rary developments are closely identical. acommon set of standards for library educationat university level. could be applicable in allthe four countries.

Guided by these similarities. the UNESCORegional Seminar on Library Devel opment inSouth Asia. Delhi. October 3-14. 1960. ev~

Z4

recommended setting up a regional librarytraining centre for South Asia. in which con-nection Delhi was Inentioned as an appropriatelocation for such a purpose in the message tothe 1960 UNESCOSeminar at Delhi by the thenDirector-General of UNESCO. (Delhi has alsobeen suggested as a possible campus for theALA's proposed International Library School)[1]. More recently the 1967 Colombo Meetingof Experts on the National Planning of LibraryServices in Asia also made recommendationfor a regional training centre [Z]. Karachi wasalso recommended by the U. S. Aid BookSurvey [3] to serve as a Regional Centre forAdvanced Library Studies and Research not forSouth Asia but for the countries of CENTO [3].Such regional training centres are not uncom-rnon in other parts of the world. Two suchcentres are already imparting education inAfrica under the assistance provided throughUNESCO: (1) the Dakar Regional Centre forTraining of French-speaking Librarians; (Z)theKampala Regional Centre for Training of Eng-lish-speaking Librarians [4]. In Latin Americathe Inter-American Library School at the Uni-versity of Antioquia in Medellin performs thesame function but under an International Execu-tive Council consisting of the representativesof the University of Antioquia, the National Uni-versity FUnd. the Columbia Library Associa-tion. UNESCO. the Organisation of AmericanStates. the American Library Aesoc iat'ion andthe School's Alumni [5]. until the School wasfully incorporated into the university. A Coun-cil of Library Training in East Africa alsoexists at the Kampala Regional Centre but hasfailed to produce any useful impact on libraryeducation (6]. While a regional training centrefor the four countries under study or a regionalcouncil for library education may seem de-sirable. the current political relations betweenthem would. however, make it difficult to under-take such a joint venture. Although, it has notbeen unusual for Indian schools to receive afew trainees from Burma (7], Ceylon andNepal in the past. extension of such a practiceon a large scale and on a continuing basisleaves much to be desired. It is likely. there-fore. that training facUities within each coun-try will develop independently of each other.For a closer collaboration between the libraryschoals in the region, it may. however. seemuseful to organise an association of libraryschools in the region on a purely professionaland non-political basis. If such an associationis forzned it should concern itself with commonproblema in library education. The Asia

Ann Lib Sci: Doc

STANDARDS FOR LIBRARY EDUCATION

Foundation, UNESCO, and other agencies, maybe interested in providing financial assistanceto defray its organizational and administrativecosts.

Despite the difficulties in evolving a jointmechanism, a common set of standards, aspointed out earlier, could be acceptable andmaintained because the authority to do so wouldbe vested in each country's university organi-zation. Political disparities, in whatever fromthey continue to exist, would not affect theapplication of standards.

These standards and some sort of mecha-rriarn to enforce them are all the rnor e neces-sary because the findings of this study confirrnthe continuance of the earlier attempts whichwere beyond any doubt influenced by the Britishpattern. The existing inconsistencies, as havebeen indicated by the findings, however, arethe results of the arbitrarily structured pro-grammes at various schools with misplacedemphasis. Bombay, Calcutta. Jiwaji. Ker ala,Poona, Shivaji, and SNDT. for example. offercourse on general knowledge; and almost allthe schools in India spend most of their teach-ing hours" on classification and cataloguing.The large nwnber of part-time teachers in thelibrary schools of India and Pakistan is also alegacy of the past when a few trained libra-rians had also to undertake responsibilitiesfor training their staff.

Besides these limitations. the libraryschools in the area are under financial andphysical strains. Karnatak, Poona and Punj ab(India) ha.vebudget appropriations rangingbetween one and three thousand rupees (appro-ximate U. S. $ 130 and $ 390). Similarly mostof the library schools. located in the univer-sity libraries. suffer from inadequate physicalfacilities. Library resources equally tend tobe neglected because of the non-availability ofseparate funds for that purpose.

With inadequate facilities and resourcesin India and Pakistan. there is great danger ofsub-standards creeping into the system. Forthis reason. some control ahould be establishedto check against sub-standards. Such a con-trol could also be feasible in Burma and Ceylonbecause of the similarities of educational sys-tems and trends of library developments.Consequently. the study has concluded thatsuch a control should be vested in the Univer-sity Grants Cornrnission in India; Inter-Univer-

Vol 17 No 1-2 Mar-June

sity Board or the proposed University GrantsCommissions in Pakistan; the National Councilof Higher Education in Ceylon; and the Univer-sities. Central Administration Office in Burma.These university organizations. although dif-ferent in structure. have the authority neces-sa.ry for the maintenance of standards. Forthe success of the projected control it isnecessary that there should exist a set ofcommon standards which could be enforcedby the authorities mentioned earlier. Sincewithout such an authority to enforce. standardswould not be acted upon. These standards maynot bring quality in the pr-ogr-arnmee right awaybut they would certainly b.ring about improve-ments in the existing practices making stipu-lated goals. set out in the standards. a possi- "bil ity in the future.

The proposed standards are not defini-tive; neither are they magic beads that wouldbring an end to the problems of library educa-tion, when thrown in the fire-place. Thesestandards. if properly enforced, would bringabout improvement in the existing situationand. therefore. need to be reviewed periodical-ly, The standards are qualitative. The quan-titative standards may not be effective sincethe attainment of the stipulated goals may beirrelevant of quality.

The standards for library education in theUnited Kingdom. the United States, and LatinAmerica and those developed by this study, forBurma. Ceylon. India and Pakistan. showstrong similarities in the areas covered. Oneis. therefore. struck by their commonness. Itseems obvious that education anywhere in theworld would be concerned with faculty. curri-culum. teaching methods. physical facilities.etc. and. for that reason. qualitative stan-dards would tend to be identical everywhere.Perhaps. the standards for South Asia couldalso be applied in other countries.

The only difference one would observe inthe case of South Asia is its emphasis on theseparation of the library .chool froIn the uni-versity library. Is this situation due to theconsiderations of .avini' in the costs that theuniversity librarian. continue to hold jointappointments in the library and library schoolsin the area? Should it reInain '0 or should itchange at a point where there is enough matu-rity in the proaramme callin, for full-tiIn,attention of a director and supporting staff?Is the change in the quality and status of

25

ANIS KHURSHID

library education in the United ~tates andBrazil the result of the changeover frompart-time to full-time faculty? Answers tothese questions would make the standards.concerning faculty and administration of lib-rary schools. slightly different from those incountries which do not face similar problems.

The interpretation of the standards will,however. differ from country to country accor-ding to the local needs. For example. theemphasis on a second language in Africa willbe different from that in Latin America orSouth A.ia. So will be the case in the teachingof cataloguing and classification in as much asthe treatment of local names and subjects areconcerned.

In the light of the above conclusions. onemay raise these questions: Do qualitativestandards have universality? However. thereia. understandably. a core of commonness inqualitative standards since education alloverthe world would be concerned with faculty.physical facilities. admiasion requirements,and teaching methods. etc.

Before discussing the standards forBurma. Ceylon. India. and Pakistan it would,however. seem desirable to examine thevarious practices with regard to standards forlibrary education as they obtain in the UnitedKingdom. the United States and Latin America.The following discussion is. therefore. devotedto such practices in the areas referred toabove:

United Kingdom: According to Bernard I.Palmer. "the Library Association does notre~uire any member to take a course beforesubmitted himself to the professional exaITli-nations, although it strongly advises this. Asa consequence, it has never accredited coursesas such, the proof of the pudding beging in theeating (or the examining in our caaet )" [8].

In 1960, however. a dramatic change wasevident in the Association' s attitude when itapproached the n University of Sheffield to askif it would consider establishing a post-gradu-ates school of librarianship" [9]. In 1962, theAssociation's Education Committee set up aSub-Committee "to examine and report on thewhole m atte r of recognition. in relation to theRegistrar of internal examinations in librarian-ship. and diplomas issued in respect of themconducted by bodies other than the Library _Association including methods of control by the

26

Library Association of internal examinations"(10]. The Sub-Committee r-ecorrrrnended aacheme of safeguarded internal ex.arnination forwhich schools meeting a set of minimumstandards prescribed for the purpose arerequired to put in an application to seek per-mission to examine internally on behalf of theAssociation. This scheme also requiredappointment of 'visitors' to report on schoolsapplying for internal examination. The grantof this privilege is for" a stated nurnbe r ofyears, renewal being subject to the approvalof the Council" [11] of the Association. Thevisitors also report on the schools seekingrenewal. By July 1968 only four schools outof eleven concerned applied for permissionand all were granted it [12].

The application form, prescribed for thepurpose of seeking permission for internalexamination, require among other things, thefollowing information:

1. Status of librarianship course, e. g. ,Department, School, etc.

2. Nurnber of students currently enrolled

3. Number of students anticipated

4. Number of teaching staff (aggregatedpart-time staff may be counted)

5. Nurriber of clerical staff per hourspecific all y allocated to the depart-ment of librarianship

6. For how many subjects in the Part IIexamination are courses beingprovided?

7. Method used to select

8. Accornrnodat ion

9. Library facilities

10. Teaching aids and equipment

11. Is the college library administered bya Chartered Librarian?

12. Facilities for practical training [13]

The rrrintrnurn standards prescribed bythe Association is based on broad principlesand stress on equitable status of the schoolwithin the parent institution; high proportion ofgroup and tutorial work for which the teachingstaff/student ratio should be 1:10-with a mini-mum of six full-time teachers and good provi-sion for part-time and specialist visitinglecturers; a minimum number of 80 students

Ann Lib Sci Doc

STANDARDS FOR LIBRARY EDUCATION

with sufficient residential and recreationalfacilities for them; adequate accommodation --lecture hall to hold all student body; class-rooms to accommodate all classes simulta-neously; tutorial rooms, private study facili-ties; accessibility of teaching aids and librarymaterials; ar r-angernent for pr ac tical work insuitable libraries [14]. In the case of Univer-sity schools, the Association is representedon advisory committee or (alternatively)shares in the appointment of external exami-ners [15]. These developments, according toC. Bradley, have given the Library Associa-tion "more powerful influence on their stand-ards than it has ever possessed before" [16].

United States: Like znany aspects oflibrary education in Aznerica, the znechanisznfor accreditation for library schools beganwith the Williamson Report. The Board ofEducation for Librarianship, created on June30, 19Z4 as a result of this Report, aimed atforznulating standards based on the then exis-ting situation rather than basing it on an idealsituation [17]. Thus established, its standardswere designed to deal with four different typesof schools. The 1933 standards, however,r ecogmz ed three types of schools based onadznissi ...•u requireznents and programmes.These standards were strictly quantitative. In1948, the 1933 standards were suspended. Astatement of pol icy is sued by the Board ofLibrary Education stated the following princi-ples for setting up standards:

1. The purpose of accrediting is to im-prove the services of librariesthrough the iInprovement of the pro-fes sional education of librarians.

Z. The spirit of.accrediting should bethat of constructive evaluation of alibrary school.

3. Accreditation of library educationprogrammes at the national levelshould continue to be coordinatedthrough a single agency which isauthorized by the mernber s of the pro-fession and representative of theirinterests.

4. An accrediting agency should drawupon the zneznbers of the library pro-fession and professional libraryschools for advice and assistance indeveloping and adzninistering stan-dards.

Vol 17 No 1-2 Mar-June

5. In adzniniste ring an accrediting pro-gramme in the field of librarianship,the accrediting agency should coope-rate with accrediting groups in otherfields in the general interest of im-proving higher education.

6. An accrediting agency should conti-nually re-examine and revise itspolicies and procedures. In the appli-cation of standards it should avoidrigidity and inflexibility which wouldhamper general progress in the edu-cation of librarians.

7. An accrediting agency rnuat evaluatethe libra.ry school in its institutionalsetting.

8. The standards should be set in aframework which will permit a libraryschool to initiate experiments in pro-fessional education and operate with-out conflict with the policies andorganization of its own institution.

9. The standards should emphasizequalitative rather than quantitativecriteria. Without setting up arbitraryspecifi cat ions they should indicateclearly those levels of achievementwhich contribute to continuing pro-gress in the education of librarians.

10. The standards should represent theminimuzns of achievements consistentwith the needs of the library profes-sion.

ll. The standards should emphasize keycriteria which represent elements ofmost itnportance in the professionaleducation of librarians [18].

The 1951 Standar ds , when formulated,eliminated completely the classification of lib-rary schools by types [19] and since then theywere keyed to five-year programmes only. An-other significant change in the standards re-lated to its qualitative natures. The Cotnmitteeevaluates application for accreditation and con-sists of eight members including the Directorof the Office for Library Education. Lester E.Aaheirn , who acts as ALA Staff Liaison. Appli-cation for accreditation is rnade in a reportform giving factual information about the pro-gramme together with necessary evidence tosubstantiate the inforznation. The informationrelates to the place of the school in the parentinstitution, curriculuzn, degrees. faculty and

27

ANIS KHURSHlD

their publications and research, finances, phy-sical facilities and library resources. A visi-ting committee appointed for this purposevisits the school for about three days and sub-mits a report to the Committee based on itsvisit to the School. It is on the basis of thisreport that accreditation is granted or refused.

The minimum standards for the accredi-tation of library schools, as established by theCouncil of the American Library Association,deal with organization and administration,financial status, faculty, administrative andnon-instructional staff, curriculum, admis sionrequirements, degrees, quarters and equip-ment and library facilities and services. Basedon broad principles, the current standardsadopted in 1951, for organization and adminis-t r at ion, faculty and library facilities and ser-vices read as follows:

Organization and Administration

The Library school responsible for theprogramme of library education shall be anintegral part of the parent institution and shallbe assured of status and continuing financialsupport sufficient to carry out the programmein accordance with these standards.

The programme shall be administered byan executive officer empowered by the institu-tion with sufficient authority to accomplish theobjectives herein outlined.

The executive officer shall have qualifi-cations similar to those required of the facultyand competence necessary to fulfill the addi-tional responsibilities of his office. His aca-demic status and title shall be appropriate tohis position as judged in relation to the orga-nization of facul ty in the institution.

Faculty

The faculty shall be adequate in number,authority and competence to determine and tocarry out a programme designed to achieve theobjectives stated in these standards and otherobjectives of the library school.

The instructional programme must be theresponsibility of a corps of full-time facultysufficient in number to provide stability andcontinuity of instruction, to carry the majorportion of the teaching load and to represent avariety of competencies.

28

Library Facilities and Services

Adequate library facilities and servicesshall be provided. The character and organi-zation of the library of the institution, thespecial collections for the library school, andother local l ibr arv resources, will be judgedin relation to the curriculum offered (21).

The report resulting from the visitingcommittee contains a detailed analysis of theschool's status in relation to the stipulatedstandards.

Even after accreditation a re-assess-ment of each accredited school has been cus-tomary, at an interval of ten years. But,since 1968, a continuing review has beenadopted which takes place every year. Anofficial reporting form designed for this pur-pose requires information with regard to sig-nificant changes that took place during theyear; school's relation to its parent institution;curriculum; admission requirements; degrees;quarters and equipment; library facilities andservices [22]. The report also requires infor-mation on new faculty members, budget, majorfaculty research and publications and outstand-ing honours received by the library schoolfaculty, workshops and institutes sponsored bythe school, and major changes under consi-deration.

Latin Amen ca: The rapid change in thelibrary scene of Latin America has also in-creased the number of library schools in thearea. There are thirtynine schools of varyingquality in the region [23]. The three round-tables on the pre-service and in-service train-ing of librarians organized by the Inter-Ameri-can Library School at Medellin, during theperiod 1963-65, through a subsidy provided bythe Rockefeller Foundation, brought about theformulation of a set of minimum standards forlibrary education in Latin America [24]. Al-though the standards are qualitative yet they areelaborate enough to explain various details ofprofessional education in librarianship to theuniversity administrators who are not fullyaware of the requirements of profes sionallibrarianship in the area [25].

Broadly stated, the Latin Americanstandards suggest that the library schoolsshould be part of a university system; entrancerequirements should be the same as that of anyuniversity course; the titles of the degrees

Ann Lib Sci Doc

STANDARDSFOR LIBRARY EDUCATION

offered should be the Licenciado en Biblioteco-logia (Bachelor in Library Science) and in thefuture when the condition dernands a doctoratein library science; the teaching znethods shouldinclude group discussion, case study, sezninarbesides the lecture znethod with increased useof audio-visual znaterials; theoretical instruc-tion should be coznbined with practice work andvisits to libraries; the students should possessan ampl e reading ability in English; the quali-fications of library school teacher should beidentical to the teachers in other schools andshould include good general pedagogical train-ing; the teaching staff should be eznployed on apart-tizne basis; a full-tizne professor shouldnot teach rrror e than 12 class contact hours aweek to perznit htrn to undertake research inlibrarianship; professors should be assistedby instructors and clerical assistants; thernirrirnurn nuznber of full-tizne professorsshould be three including the director of theschool.

The other standards require adequateprovision of space for classroom, offices andfaculty; budget allocation necessary to run theschool on lines identical to other schools in theuni.••.ersity; mirrirnurn collection of 2,000 mono-graphic titles and coznplete runs of 40 perio-dical titles; one professional librarian and oneassistant on the staff of a library school libra-ry; seating capacities for 25 per cent of thestudents in the library school's library.

The standards dealing with study plansprescribe 1,800 hours of class work pluspractical and individual work spread over aperiod of three years. The curriculum inclu-des 420 hours of general education; 1,020hours of basic professional course, such as,introduction to librarianship (60 hours); intro-duction to library techniques (30 hours); his-tory of books and libraries (60 hours); libraryadzninistration (120 hours); book selection (45hours); classification and cataloguing (300hours); reference work (120 hours); bibliogra-phy (150 hours); readers and libraries (45hours); research znethodology (30 hours); anddocumentation (60 hours). The standards fur-ther prescribe that two elective subjects shouldcover 120 hours; while specialized courses andsezninars should include four rnor e courses ofat least 60 hours each at an advanced level.The latter group includes special Problezns ofDifferent Types of Libraries, Advanced Studiesin Adzninistration, Advanced Studies in Cata-loguing and Classification, Advanced Studies

Vol 17 No 1-2 Mar-June

in Bibliography, Advanced Studies in Historyof Books and Libraries, Advanced Studies inDocumentation, Planning of Library Services,Coznparative Librarianship, Pathalogy of theBook, Teaching of Library Service, Periodi-cals and Serials.

However, lacking the necessary rnecha>rrisrn to enforce them the standards have notreceived a wider application as is evident fromthe Luis Floren's appraisal of library educa-tion in Latin America [26].

But a movement has eet in Latin Americawhich according to Maria Teresa Sanz resultedinto still wider aspirations than reflected in thestandards. She says, n Since then [after theformulation of standards] many schools havegone beyond these requirements [as prescribedby the standards] and their wider aspirationsare expressed in the recommendations of acommittee of librarians appointed by the Fede-ral Council [on Education in Brazil] to studynorms for post-graduate courses leading to aMaster's or Doctor's degree" [27]. In Brazil,the Public Law of 1962, restricts the practiceof Bachelor in Library Science from anofficially approved school; those holdingforeign diplomas are required their evalua-tion under this law [28].

Proposed Standards

It is evident from the above discussionthat qualitative rather than quantitative stan-dards are generally found; those adopted by theSouth African Library Association also fallunder the category of qualitative standards [29].According to Leon Carnovsky, "", even asearly as 1933 [in the United States], the strictlyquantitative criteria-·so many library volumes,so many faculty members, so many credits--were deemphasized or omitted in preference tothe qualitative, if more vague in exact stand-ards [30].

Based on the experiences of the countriesdiscussed above, it would seem that similartype of standards (1.e., qualitative) shouldprove all the more useful in Burma, Ceylon,India and Pakistan where existing practice 5 inlibrary education vary greatly among them.This difference in practices render a workablegeneral ization difficult to base quantitativestandards thereon. The measuring rod type ofstandards (i. e.• quantitative) on the other handare likely to negate the very purpose for which

29

ANlS KHURSHlD

they are proposcd- to improve the existinglibrary education facil ities - in countries likeBurrna, where a post-Bachelor's progr arnrnein library science is still a dream, The lackof public support for such a programrne inBurma would make even more difficult to es-tablish it under quantitative standards. Thequalitative standards nonetheles s are not per-missive enough to cover sub-standards undertheir sheild and at the same time would notprohibit such pioneering ventures as at Lahoreand Madras. And it is because of these earlypr ogr arnrnes that the establishment of full-timeschools as at Madras, Delhi, and DRTe waspossible.

For these reasons, the standards pro-posed below for the four countries are qualita-tive rather than quantitative. Even qualitativestandards may be of two types. Those aimingat ideal goals might be purely theoretical andconsequently might well be out of touch withreality. The other type of standards, conver-sely, might aspire to the highest attainablegoals within the context of limitations in speci-fic situations.

The earliest American standards havebeen called"down-to-earth" [31]since they toowere based npt on idealism but the existingsituations under which they were formulated.But even such "down-to-earth" standardsgreatly contributed to the setting of the stagefor the present standards (adopted in 1951).

The present standards for the four coun-tries developed in this study are based on theexisting limitations and practices of the libra-ry schools in the area, as revealed in thestudy. Within these limitations, the proposedstandards set the highest attainable goals.Even though such goals may not seem highenough, from a theoretical point of view, theyare formulated in the belief that they wouldbring about the improvement necessary to setforth higher goals.

Standards

1 Place of Schools in University Setting

The library school shall be an integralpart of a university and shall enjoy the samestatus and support, both academically andfinancially, as do other teaching departmentsor schools in the university system. It shallbe separate from the university library with

30

its own administrative head of the department,The teaching staff shall hold academic ranksand enjoy similar privileges that are availableto their counterparts in comparable teachingdepartments and schools.

The school shall be a full-time teachingdepartment offering courses in the day-time.The school's status shall be such to guaranteesufficient independence for separate staffingand for membership on regular academiccommittees [32].

2 Levels of Library Education

The levels of library education within auniversity shall consist of:

1. A one academic year Bachelor'sdegree in Lib. Sc.

2. A one academic year Master'sdegree in Lib. Sc.

3. A Ph. D. in Lib. Sc., where thecondition demands.

The Bachelor's degree course in Lib. Sc,shall be open to those holding a Bachelor'sdegree in any other area and shall aim at pre-paring Libea r ians for beginning professionalpositions. The Master's degree course in Lib.Sc., on the other hand, shall be open to thosealready holding a Bachelor's degree in LibraryScience with at least one years' field experi-ence after their first professional degree.

'] Financial Status

The school shall have a separate budgetof its own including financial provisions ade-quate to maintain standards set out herein.

Such provision shall also include neces-sary funds for teaching aids, research and pub-lications. library materials, faculty travel andstudent scholarships and fellowships commen-surate with the types of progr arnrnes offeredby the schools. The adequacy of the budgetshall be judged in relation to the budgets ofthose schools offering comparable pr ogr-arnrneaThe adequacy of the salaries of the staff includ-ing the executive officer shall be judged in re-lation to those of the teachers of comparablequalifications and competencies in other de-partments of the university. A new prograInmeshall provide for capital expenditure adequateto build up a base collection of books. teachingaids. and other necessary equipment.

Ann Lib Sci Doc

S,}'ANDARDS FOR LIBRARY EDUCATION

4 Faculty

The faculty shall be adequate in numberand competency to teach the types of coursesbeing offered at the school

Primarily the teaching shall be the respon-sibility of full-time faculty; at the same time.part-time teachers shall be employed to teachspecial courses but they may not carry a fullteaching load. The minimum number of bothfull-tiITIe and part-time faculty shall dependupon (1) the size of enrolment; (2) the numberand nature of specialized courses; (3) thenumber and nature of elective and requiredcourses.

The teacher-student ratio shall not bemore than 1:15 in a school offering a Bachelor'scourse, and not more than 1:10 in other offer-ing a Master's course. The maintenance ofthis ratio is necessary to permit supervisoryand tutorial work of acceptable quality andindividual research by the faculty members.

The selection of faculty shall rest uponacadem ic qualifications and competency inprofessional subjects. The research publica-tions and experience in professional field shallalso be guiding factors in their selection. Theteachers shall receive salary and hold rankcomparable to their counterparts in other de-partments.

5 Administration

The head of the school shall be a full- ,time executive officer with both administrativeand teaching responsibility, He shall hold therank of a professor or reader depending uponthe size and nature of the programmes. Thereshall be necessary administrative and clericalstaff to assist the head and faculty members incarrying out their administrative duties.

The demand of library training at thebeginning level (B. Lib. Sc.) is such that it maynot be possible to secure competent persons todirect all the schools, for some time to come.In such situations alone a school offeringBachelor's course in Library Science shall betemporarily placed under the university libra-rian. But a full-time deputy head shall beappointed to assist the university librarian indischarge of his school duties. This, in nocase, shall, however, apply to schools offeringadvanced programmes.

Vol 17 No 1-2 Mar-June

6 Curriculum

The curriculum at the Bachelor's levelshall include the basic courses in librarianship ,such as. Introduction to Librarian ship (includ-ing history of books and libraries), Classifica-tion. Cataloguing, Bibliography, Book Selec-tion. Reference Service, Library Organizationand Administration. and Documentation. Thenumber of such courses shall not exceed six,each consisting of 3-4 lessons of one hourduration in a week. There shall be a balancedcurriculum without undue emphasis on certainareas.

The basic programme at this level of .training shall place emphasis on fundamentalprinciples and processes common to all typesof libraries and all phases of library servicesand aim at promoting appreciation of books andlibraries.

The Master's level shall serve as anintermediary stage for research and shall en-courage use of seminars and discussion me-thods in its teaching.

Non-professional courses, such asGeneral Knowledge, Current Affairs shall notform part of the curriculum at Bachelor's level..Specialization shall not be introduced at thisstage but shall be taught at Master's level.(For school and college libraries. however,some courses shall be offered at this stage ifthe situation so demands).

7 Requirements for Admission

The school shall prescribe efficientselection procedures to ensure that applicantspossess necessary interest in books and lib-raries. Admission to Bachelor's Course inLibrary Science shall be open to those possess-ing a Bachelor's degree in liberal arts, huma-nities, or sciences with at least a good secondclass.

Those applying for Master's course inLibrary Science shall possess at least a goodsecond class in B. Lib. Sc. and one-year'sexperience of library work in a sizeable lib-rary.

Admission to the Bachelor's programme~hall be subject to a test to judge the degree ofmterest of the candidates in books, and libra-ries.

31

ANIS KHURSHID

High professional calibre and intellectualcapacity shall be looked for in those applyingfor advanced courses. The number of studentsat this level shall be determined on the size offaculty and physical facilities necessary foradvanced work.

8 Physical Facilities

Suitable and adequate quarters shall beavailable, for classrooms, practice work,colloquium, administration. There shall beenough classrooms to hold simultaneousclasses based on the size of enrolment andnumber of courses being offered. Each full-time faculty member shall have separate officeroom.

The school quarters shall be separate ofthe university library but shall be at a distancefrom it reasonably convenient to the students.

9 Equipment and Teaching Aids

Facilities shall be available in the schoolfor duplicating purposes. Audio-visualmaterials shall be available for use in class-room instruction.

If audio-visual aids are not available inthe school, the school shall have access to suchmaterials through regional or national centres.

10 Library Resources

Library science resources are as impor-tant for teaching of librarianship as are labo-ratories for sciences. The school, therefore,shall have access to an adequate and well-organized collection on library science toserve as a living example of organization andservices to the prospective librarians.Although not complete historically, such acollection shall consist of important mono-graphic publications, preferably in English,published since World War II.

It is not necessary, although preferable,to maintain a separate library of the libraryschool. But it is important that such a collec-

32

tion shall have adequate space for shelving. Itis also important that the area where that'collection is housed shall have enough quartersto provide adequate individual carrels andreading tables to accommodate at least 25 percent of library science students at one time.

A library science collection for aBachelor's programme shall have a stock of atleast 2,500 volwnes. For Master' s program~there shall be at least a basic collection of5, 000 volumes of monographs and bound serialsissued since World War II. The periodical re-sources shall include important periodicalspublished throughout the world besides thosepublished in the region. Those schools offeringadvanced programmes shall subscribe to 50 to100 current periodicals and also maintain backfiles of carefully selected titles.

Ph. D. Programmes

Although the present study reveals thatboth India and Pakistan are ill-equipped atpresent for respectable Ph. D. programmesand that there is a general agreement amongthe experts that such a training would be moreadvantageous if it was pursued in a foreigncountry, yet there are three schools (Andhra,Delhi and Karachi) which have already enrolledstudents for such programme. Standards,proposed above, however, do not deal withPh. D. programmes. It is, therefore, desirableto provide at least some guidelines for suchprogrammes. To start with,a strong facultypossessing a sound research experience, shouldbe available to guide the students. Part-timeteachers should not have any place in suchprogrammes, since they would not be able togive as much guidance as is required for Ph.D.programmes. Admission to these programmesshould be open to high calibre students, posses-sing sufficient field experience, and capabili-ties of research. Those selected should be re-quired to take a non-credit course in researchmethodology. And above all, there should be awell-rounded research collection consisting ofbetween 5, 000 and 10, 000 volwnes of mono-graphic publications and serials. The periodi-cal holdings of back files of important journalsshould be sufficiently strong and subscriptionto current periodicals should include all thetitles, commonly listed in the Library Litera-ture and Library and Information ScienceAbstracts with possible exceptions of AmericanState Library Association journals.

Ann Lib Sci Doc

STANDARDSFOR LIBRARY EDUCATION

REFERENCES ANDNOTES

[1] Guy A. Marco: Letter to rnembe r s of theLED Cotntnittee on an International Lib-rary School, June 17, 1968.

[2] UNESCO, Meeting of Experts on theNational Planning of Library Services inAsia, Col ornbo, De cembe r 11-19, 1967,Final Report. (Paris: UNESCO, 1968),p.4.

[3] U. S. Agency for International Develop-rrrent, Book Production, hnportation andDistribution in Pakistan ••• By EtnersonBrown and others (Published by StateUniversity of New York at PlantingFields, Oyster Bay, for U.S. AID, 1966),pp.54,55.

[4] Silvere Willetnin: "The Training of Lib-rarians in Africa". UNESCOBulletin forLibraries, XXI (November-December,1967), 296-97.

[5J William Verson Jackson: "[Education forLibrarianship Abroad]: Latin America",Library Trends, XII (October, 1963).p.333.

[6J Wilfred N Saunders: Personal interviewat Pittsburgh, July, 1968.

[7] Only one trained in India, Thaw Kang,letter to Dean Harold Lancour, GSLIS,University of Pittsburgh, July 18, 1968.

[8] Bernard I Palmer: Letter to author,July 29, 1958.

[9] Wilfred L Saunders: "The Library Schoolin the University Setting", in LibraryEducation: An International Survey, ed,Larry Earl Bone (illinois: University ofillinois, 1968), p.83.

[10] The Library Association, Council, "Intel'-nal and External Examining: Report bythe Sub-Committee on Internal and Exter-nal Examining, As Amended by the Edu-cation Committee on January 8th, 1964",(London, 1965), p. 1.

(11] Ibid., p.2.

[12] Bernard I Palmer: Letter to author,July 29, 1968.

Vol 17 No 1-2 Mar-June

[13] Ibid.

(14] The Library Association, Council, "Inter-nal and External Examining: Report bythe Sub-Committee on Internal and Exter-nal Examining, As Amended by the Edu-cation Committee on January 8th, 1964,"p. 4., appendix.

[15] Bernard I Palmer: Letter to author,July 29, 1968.

(16] Bradley C: "The Development of Full-Time Education for Librarianship inGreat Britain Since the War" (unpublishedthesis, Fellowship of the Library Asso-ciation, 1967), p.336.

[17] Leon Carnovsky: "Evaluation and Accredi-tation of Library Schools," in LibraryEducation: An International Survey, ed,Larry Earl Bone, p.134.

(18] American Library Association, Board ofEducation for Librarianship, "proposalsfor Accrediting professional programs: AStatement of Policy", ALA Bulletin, XLV(January, 1951), pp.7-8.

[19] The first report of the Board of Educationfor Librarianship suggested approval offour types of programmes; Type I: ajunior undergraduate programme requir-ing a single year of college for admis-sion; Type II: a senior undergraduateprogramme requiring three years of acollege for admission; Type III: a gra-duate programme with an undergraduatedegree for admission; Type IV: an ad-vanced graduate programme leading tothe degrees of A. M. or Ph. D. The pro-gramme as it developed after 1933, re-cognised only three types; Type I: con-sisting of such schools which require atleast a bachelor's degree for admissionand/or which give advanced professionaltraining beyond the first year; Type II:consisting of such schools which giveonly the first full academic year of lib-rary training, requiring four years ofappropriate college work for admission;Type III: consisting of such schools whichgive only one year's training but not re-quiring four years of college work foradmission. Since 1951, only fifth yearprogrammes are recognized. (SeeCarnovsky. "Evaluation and Accredita-

33

ANIS KHURSHID

tion of Library Schools'", in LibraryEducation: An International Surveyn, ed.Larry Earl Bone, pp.136-37).

[20] American Library Association, Com-mittee on Accreditation, Statement ofInterpretation to Accompany Standardsfor Accreditation, Adopted by the ALACouncil, July 13, 1951n, (Chicago, m..1962), p.1.

[21] American Library Association, Com-mittee on Accreditation, Standards forAccreditation ..• (Chicago, ill., 1961),p.I-2.

[22] American Library Association, Com-mittee on Accreditation, Memorandum toaccredited library schools, September13, 1968.

[23] Maria Teresa Sanz: "The Training ofLibrarians and Documental is t s'",UNESCO Bulletin for Libraries, XVI(November-December, 1967), 318.

[24J "Normas para Escuela de Bibliotecolo-gia, Informe de las Mesas de Estudio dePreparation de 10s Bibliotecarios en laAmerica Latina ..• Texto Provisional",Cuardernos Bibliotecologios no.29(Washington: Pan American Union, 1966),pp.1-12.

34

[25] Marietta Daniels Shepard: "Education forLfb r ar ianahip in Latin America: Con-clusions of the Study Made by the Inter-American Library School", CuardernosBibliotecologicos, no.33 (Washington:Pan American Union, 1966), p.5.

[26] Luis Floren: "Library Science in LatinAmerica", in Library Education: AnInternational Survey, ed. Larry EarlBone, pp. 27-28.

[27] Sanz:" The Training of Librarians andDocumentalists in Latin America", p.326.

[28] Associa Brasileira de Bibliotecarios,Legislacao (Brazil, 1966).

[29] South African Library Association,"Standards for Library Education",p,I-4.

[30] Carnovasky:" Evaluation and Accredita-tion of Library Schools" in Library Edu-cation: International Survey, ed. LarryEarl Bone, p.135.

[31] Ibi~, p.134.

[32] The standards are in italics. The ex-planatory notes following it representinterpretation of the standards them-sel ve s ,

Ann Lib Sci Doc