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
| 
