Supplementary evidence from Mark Mitchell,
University of Portsmouth following the oral evidence session on
2 November 2010 (PB 60)
The uncorrected transcript of the oral evidence given
to the Justice Committee on the morning of Tuesday 2 November
2010 includes the following exchange on page 19.
Q213 Anna Soubry: I was just going to ask—forgive
me, I don't know if it is in the papers—what percentage
of the training as you move to the higher level is actually academic
training and what part of it is practical? What is the percentage?
Robin Wilkinson:
I couldn't give you that percentage breakdown, I am afraid. I
suspect my colleagues behind could, but I couldn't, I am afraid.
Chair: If you would like
to drop us a note on that point, that would be very helpful.
In response to this invitation from the Chair, I
would like to submit the following additional evidence to the
Committee.
The higher level of the new Probation Qualification
Framework comprises an integrated programme of academic and practice
learning, making it difficult to separate the academic from the
practical.
NOMS, in letting the contracts for the delivery of
the PQF, required contractors to demonstrate how they proposed
to achieve:
"Integration of teaching and practice, including
integration and articulation of vocational qualification(s)".
(Ministry of Justice Contract Document RPU NE0910/39/11, Appendix
G, Section A, question 1.1)
This is achieved in two ways. Firstly, the vocational
qualifications themselves are formally accredited by the contracted
higher education providers and contribute directly to the attainment
of the community justice academic awards that lead to qualification
as a probation officer.
Secondly, the majority of the assignments undertaken
by probation services officers studying for these awards require
them to refer to their practice with offenders in order to answer
the assignment questions. This ensures that PSOs are able to integrate
the theoretical and practical components of their learning.
November 2010
| 
