Training of Children and Families Social Workers - Children, Schools and Families Committee Contents


Memorandum submitted by Bournemouth University

  We are grateful for the opportunity to respond to the Select Committee's call for evidence into the education and training of children and families social workers (many of our comments are transferable across the range of social work activities, recognising the central importance of generic first stage education). We particularly welcome the renewed vigour and interest in enhancing social work education, and concomitantly social work practice, a complex and challenging area of social life. Our responses follow:

ENTRY ROUTES TO THE PROFESSION

Are entry routes to social work sufficiently flexible to encourage mature entrants, re-entrants and people considering a career change?

  We believe our entry routes have a degree of flexibility that allows mature entrants to apply, eg specific access to higher education programmes delivered by our local partner FE colleges ensures applicants for the social work programme are given an interview if they meet the (DH and GSCC) specified academic requirements for the programme.

Whilst bursaries assist with the costs of undertaking social work programmes, the introduction of variable fees create barriers for those students with care-giving and familial responsibilities. Should fees be raised in future they are highly likely to create a significant barrier to mature entry and to people considering a career change. There is evidence that NHS bursaries for nursing draw potential students from Social Work to Nursing.

The importance of maintaining a wide entry gate is important for the profession and we would seek to offer a master's route alongside our undergraduate route which would also promote greater access for mature students who already have a degree. However, should they be penalised for taking an equivalent level qualification this would be counterproductive.

STRUCTURE OF TRAINING

Is a three-year bachelor's degree/two-year master's degree the right format and level for initial social work training?

Following initial training, how should newly-qualified social workers be equipped with the further skills and experience they need?

  The current format of initial education and training provides a useful starting point for entry to the profession. But it is an entry level qualification and not one that produces someone capable of acting at the highest level of the profession—this takes years of training and experience and it is dangerous to think otherwise. We feel it is beneficial to have a structured, compulsory pathway for continuous professional development incorporating the NQSW status to be overseen by the GSCC and linked to professional registration at a higher level of competence followed by further education and training to take social workers subsequently to a yet higher level—a master's level post-qualifying award that would allow for social workers to specialise once in practice.

Research that we have undertaken here at Bournemouth suggests that the current format prepares people well for initial practice but that social workers are often faced with complex and increased demands that are not appropriate to take on without further training (see Bates et al, forthcoming).[2]

CONTENT OF INITIAL TRAINING

Is the generic social work degree fit for the purpose of training children and families social workers? Is there sufficient scope for specialisation?

Does the content of training reflect the tasks social workers will be asked to undertake when in employment?

Is the balance of knowledge, skills, values and experience correct?

  We consider the initial degree qualification to be an introduction to a career in social work. We feel it is beneficial to be a generic qualification and specialisation should follow at post qualifying level.

The publication of the Lord Laming's recent report has provided the framework to successfully argue for changes in the curriculum of our degree such that the content focusing on child protection and adult safeguarding has been significantly increased. However, it would be to the detriment of the education currently should this demand specialism rather than focus within the degree. The emphasis on increased practice learning days within the degree was welcomed by the social work sector and, indeed, by many in higher education at the time. However, this has led to a highly concentrated curriculum during university learning time with us wanting to teach social work students more and to developing/seeking placements from a variety of areas. Whilst we pride ourselves at Bournemouth, and indeed have been commended by the GSCC for developing our placement range, we feel that the demands are not conducive to ensuring that all social work students gain access to the highest quality statutory placements which are at a premium. Less placement days in a core agency may be worth more than increased days in a different agency. What we do not have, of course, is the research evidence to indicate whether or not increased placement days has a beneficial impact on social work education and the implication of recent expressed disquiet by the GSCC suggests it may not. Research is imperative here.

QUALITY

How effectively does the General Social Care Council regulate the quality of training?

How can the quality, suitability and supply of practice placements be assured? (Please see last answer as well as following)

Has the switch to degree-level qualification improved the calibre of recruits and the effectiveness of newly-qualified social workers?

  The quality, suitability and supply of practice placements require us to work closely with our Local Authority partners. A renewed emphasis on partnership is warranted to ensure that we work closely together to make this work, although this must be undertaken in a way that preserves the benefits of HEI autonomy in respect of knowledge creation and research for this is where unexpected and beneficial change occurs. The ongoing CPD-PQ framework needs to include the student placement as part of the learning culture within the team; this would include the need to quality assure student placements. The quality of SW students need to be assured ie knowledge, skills and values and this goes back to the interview process and developing criteria that select the best of applicants (a recent concern expressed that social work students may have the lowest entry criteria certainly does not feel appropriate or ring true when considering those nursing programmes accepting applicants to higher education with GCSE qualification but without A levels, and it seems that we have a tension between flexible entry—through Access to HE courses, and a need to raise entry points, ours have risen to 260 UCAS points and a review of comparator institutions were asking for 240 within the last two years. This is not a low entry gate!). A concern that has developed relates to changes in the calibre of all students entering university education and the preparation received in compulsory education.

Applicants need to have basic knowledge, skills and values. Students not ready for practice should not attend placement. We need to be clearer about fitness for practice and this is where the regulator can help; leaving this to universities may create differential approaches. However, what also needs to be addressed is the question of HEFCE penalties for student attrition. Universities will of course attempt to ensure that public money spent on the education of students realises a fruitful conclusion, ie students complete the course successfully. It is imperative that we are not penalised if we determine that a student is unfit and must be prevented from completing the course by removal. We need to maintain standards of practice educator's. We must support their ongoing CPD and encourage the take up of specific courses that were so successful under the old PQ framework—the Practice Teacher Award. Universities could become a central part of the community of professional learning and a centre of relevant research. A further aspect that would help the development of quality local authority and statutory placements is the reinstatement of the performance indicator for provision of placements.

POST-QUALIFYING TRAINING AND CAREER PATHS

How can the quality, suitability and take-up of post-qualifying training be assured?

What factors influence the continuing development of newly-qualified social workers and their future career decisions?

How well do employers support the development of social workers?

How well are social workers trained to deliver front-line supervision?

  The PQ should be set within a clear compulsory standardised framework, supported by the GSCC and employers. The framework should be simplified and rationalised. Ring fenced funding is crucial to the up-take of PQ training by practitioners and the practitioner should be fully supported with protected case-loads and appropriate support for study. The PQ training needs to be embedded with the accepted culture of the organisation, starting with the NQSW year, consolidation and specialist awards and leading to higher Academic awards reflecting a framework common within other countries. This is important in an increasingly globalised world where the transfer of qualifications is necessary and where understanding is important. This take son an increased imperative given the changes to the definition of social work being undertaken by the International federation of Social Workers and due to be launched in Hong King 2010.

Professor Jonathan Parker

On behalf of the Centre for Social Work & Social Policy, Bournemouth University

May 2009







2   Bates, N, Immins, T, Parker, J, Keen, S, Rutter, L, Brown, K and Zsigo, S (forthcoming) "Baptism of Fire": The first year in the life of a newly qualified social worker, Social Work Education. Back


 
previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2009
Prepared 30 July 2009