In the wake of new reforms, Julian Buchanan and Paul McMullan look at the problems of bringing in a second practice teacher when a social work placement student looks set to fail.

Rather than introduce objectivity-invariably levels of anxiety and distress increase for the student, practice teacher and team.

Since the social work training council CCETSW issued its 'firm draft' last November, following consultations on changes to the diploma in social work, controversy has flared up over reform of the second opinion process. ¬ Under the new rules, a second opinion on practice placements will be optional rather than obligatory, as at present. ­

Experience of managing practice teachers who have had students failing their placements shows the relevance of a 'second opinion', under which another practice teacher carries out a second assessment of the student. But there are factors that call into question the validity of the second opinion, particularly the diversity of procedures which have led to confusion, inconsistency, and practices that are ill thought through.

In 1991 CCETSW introduced new standards and greater clarity for practice teachers supervising students on DipSW placements.® Those involved in educating and training staff welcomed the improvements and many felt the present government-prompted review was unnecessary and disruptive.

The competence-based model, underpinned with clear knowledge, skills and values, has provided greater consistency and professional credibility, and led to reports from practice teachers which are better supported by the evidence, more structured and reasonably objective.

The introduction of the CCETSW practice teacher award has consolidated these standards and has also resulted in the development of 'specialist' practice teachers in a number of social work agencies, who have shown a considerable amount of skill in their jobs.

Given these higher standards and improved practices it is perhaps ironic that the 1991 CCETSW Paper 30 made it necessary for practice teachers to obtain a second opinion if they considered their student to be marginal or failing. The principle of obtaining a second opinion for students is undoubtedly a good one, in the interests of fairness and objectivity, to ensure an accurate assessment is made.

The procedures that determine the practice of this principle are crucial. Fundamental to this 'integral part of the Diploma Programme' assessment process is an attempt to achieve equality of opportunity for students to demonstrate their competence.¯

But there is a widespread variation in the procedures and practices of engaging a second opinion. It is orchestrated by the partnership managing the DipSW programme; some partnerships have rigorous procedures, while others only have statements of intent.

Practice teachers would prefer not to fail students - it is an extremely difficult and painful experience for all involved.° The professional assessment that leads to a failed placement is usually a reluctant one, which causes a major dilemma for the practice teacher. It could be argued that for this reason some students pass when they should have failed.

This difficult issue is widely recognised but rarely questioned. Why do so few students ever fail the DipSW? The establishment of a second opinion has done little to help practice teachers with this predicament, nor has it given them greater strength and support to make these hard decisions.

Introducing a second opinion practice teacher if a student is about to be failed can often make the practice teacher feel it is his or her competence that is being inspected and assessed, not the student's. Quite rightly, much effort goes into ensuring that such students are treated fairly and that the process is not oppressive, but little attention is given to the needs of the practice teacher who, despite holding a more powerful position, is sometimes left feeling professionally threatened, insecure, and undermined.

Good practice teachers are committed to the need to be, as far as possible, open and anti-oppressive in their relationship with the students. This can become an exhausting but extremely important task when failing students, though one that leaves the practice teacher vulnerable to abuse or exploitation by others, including team colleagues, line managers, personal tutors, and the student.

While relationships are normally good between the practice teacher and student on placement, they can become strained and break down if a failed placement looks likely. This can tempt the student to adopt particular roles or 'games' to divert and hinder an accurate assessment.± These may be expressed as a claim that expectations are too high; a personality clash; the claim that 'colleagues think I'm all right'; points made to 'explain' why the student's performance has been hindered; or allegations that the teacher or the placement is oppressive or that he or she has criticised the student and undermined his or her confidence since the placement started.

Clearly, these allegations must be taken seriously and investigated, but they further intimidate the conscientious practice teacher. It is at this point the second opinion practice teacher enters the fray - but rather than introduce objectivity and provide a rational assessment, the opposite is generally the case: invariably, levels of anxiety and distress increase for the student, practice teacher, and team.

While the placement continues, the second opinion practice teacher tries, in a very brief period, to make an objective assessment. Exactly how the second opinion practice teacher does this seems to vary. In partnership arrangements, it can be unclear who decides on the nature of the investigation, giving rise to even more uncertainty.

Unfortunately, CCETSW guidance on second opinions is vague, giving examples of what might be included in the report but leaving the format and precise content up to the individual second opinion practice teacher. The maximum allowance of five working days for this task seems inadequate.

The second opinion practice teacher may well be expected, in this time, to read reports, travel, talk to team members, the student, the practice teacher, the tutor, the partnership, listen to audio tapes, direct observing the student's practice, and write the second opinion report. With such a limited time scale and in such a fraught environment it is unlikely that this important task can be carried out fairly and accurately.

In comparison, when a student fails an essay and it is second marked, there is no doubt that the second marker is looking at exactly the same evidence as that which led to the original failed assessment. The second opinion of marginal or failed placements may purport to be a similar model but the comparison does not stand.

The second opinion practice teacher has extremely limited contact with the student, looks at new material and is basically conducting a very narrow investigation in an unusually tense setting. Yet within this restricted and pressurised environment the outcome invariably questions the judgement of the student's practice teacher, which often undermines his or her professional confidence.

In principle, a second opinion on failed students is worthy of inclusion within the revised DipSW. But second opinions as currently practised have dubious value. If the present second opinion procedure is to continue in the revised DipSW there must be a simpler and clearer set of procedures.

A more appropriate system would be for the practice assessment panel to receive all evidence direct from the student and practice teacher and make an appropriate recommendation to the programme assessment board, which has the authority for the final decision.

In most cases one would expect the panel to support the assessment of the experienced, professionally qualified and agency-accredited practice teacher. But the panel has the power to disagree with the practice teacher's decision to fail and can recommend a pass that could be endorsed by the board.

In any event, most students who fail a placement are required to undertake a further placement, thereby having an opportunity for a 'proper' second opinion assessment. This process would be less stressful and more easily managed, and could be bolstered by the introduction of a clear students' complaints procedure.

¬ Philip Whiteley, 'Fail verdict upheld in placement row', Community Care, 12-18 January 1995; and 'Change urged for second opinions', Community Care, 2-8 February 1995

­ CCETSW, UK Consultations On The Firm Draft Requirements For The Revised DipSW, CCETSW, November 1994

® CCETSW, Requirements And Regulations For The Diploma In Social Work, Paper 30 (second edition), CCETSW, l991, and CCETSW, Improved Standards In Practice Learning Requirements And Guidance For The Approval Of Agencies And The Accreditation And Training Of Practice Teachers, Paper 26.3 (revised edition), CCETSW, l991

¯ CCETSW, 'Guidance on the Provision of a Second Opinion Practice Teacher', DipSW Variation And Quality Assurance Handbook, Practice Paper 1, CCETSW, undated

° Mark Baldwin, 'Failing students', Journal of Training and Development, Vol 3, No 3, Pepar, l993

± Hazel Banbury, Teaching Practical Social Work, Macmillan, l994

Julian Buchanan is senior probation officer, a joint appointment with Liverpool University and Merseyside Probation Service, and Paul McMullan is a senior probation officer, South Knowsley Probation Centre