News

Despite the recent growth of interest in qualifications, little attention has been paid to part one of the post-qualifying award in social work (PQ1) and the challenge it presents to experienced social workers who may have qualified five or more years ago.

PQ1 is often overlooked as an insignificant award, its sole purpose being to provide access to the more prestigious and substantial post-qualifying awards, such as the child care award or approved social worker training. Yet the experiences of agency co-ordinators, mentors and academic staff at Kingston University involved since 2000 with the South and West London and Surrey (Sawlas) partnership have suggested that PQ1 can provide valuable information about the skills, abilities and learning needs of the present workforce of qualified social workers. As such, it offers some important messages for employers and government, who are seeking to raise professional standards and prepare for registration.


After all, concern over variations in social work training was one of the factors underpinning the development of the new social work degree. The review of the Diploma in Social Work considered problems about its "fitness for purpose".1 The review praised the DipSW for enabling a variety of students to enter social work, including those without traditional university entry qualifications, but expressed concern that DipSW competences were interpreted differently in different programmes.

As experienced social workers come into contact for the first time with the PQ framework, these differences in basic training may explain the wide variations encountered on the Sawlas programme in the way students have responded to the requirements of PQ1.

The Sawlas course is a fast-track PQ1 programme for social workers qualified for more than two years that awards one-third of the credits required for a full post-qualifying award. Students receive two days' academic teaching at the university, combined with four group or individual mentor sessions, normally provided by their agency, over a three- to four-month period. They produce a critical career review and a 4,000-word commentary on current case material, which reflects on their progress since they qualified.

Evaluations of the programme have shown that many found it a good learning opportunity, welcoming the chance to gain up-to-date knowledge of theory and research. Many felt motivated to move on to other post-qualifying awards as a result of achieving a PQ1.

But programme organisers were increasingly aware that a significant minority were dropping out of the course. In Surrey social services, 37 per cent of candidates were not completing the course and, in group supervision, agency mentors started to make links between this and an unexpected range of learning needs they had noticed with students. While these needs did not prevent workers performing effectively in practice, they affected their ability for written work.

It is difficult to untangle the reasons why students fail to complete a course. Overload may cause students to withdraw if they are working in a highly pressured environment, possibly without management support or any opportunity to take study leave in work time. The quality of the course itself may be another cause. Yet these explanations could also mask underlying difficulties in learning. So a questionnaire was sent to stakeholders in the Sawlas partnership to promote discussion about why students were failing.

Two main difficulties were identified. Lack of confidence in study skills was thought to be one significant factor. Social workers who had not studied for a number of years sometimes found it difficult to identify the theories, research and values underpinning their work, even though they had kept up to date with the legal and policy context of their work. Experienced workers were also less likely to be familiar with the reflective and competence-based approaches to learning in PQ, which may not have been taught when they qualified. Without a firm foundation in approaches to learning, what might have begun as lack of confidence in study skills had for some students led to high levels of anxiety, which prevented them completing the PQ1.

Second, a small number of social workers were thought to have specific, possibly unrecognised, learning needs. Dyslexia (affecting some 4 per cent of the population) was one possible cause of difficulties in producing written work. Individuals can devise a range of open and hidden strategies to manage, but the requirements of the PQ1 programme tested this in a very direct way.


Another specific learning need concerned some for whom English was a second language. As the education and the assimilation of immigrants into a predominantly white, European culture is a complex issue, sensitive handling within the mentoring relationship was necessary. Without proper support and training, the fear of being discriminatory sometimes prevented mentors addressing the language needs of students effectively; also, it was likely that fear of discrimination prevented some students seeking support.

When the new social work degree is introduced, screening for key skills will take place at the point of entry, enabling learning needs to be addressed appropriately either before or during training. But increasing pressures to raise standards mean that the employers of 50,000 staff have a responsibility to enable their workers to achieve PQ1.2 The General Social Care Council's codes of practice state that employers must provide training and development opportunities to enable workers to strengthen their skills and knowledge. They should also support staff in meeting eligibility criteria for registration and requirements for continuing professional development. Social workers who "fall at the first hurdle" of PQ1 may have their future career prospects damaged and their value to their employer reduced. They may be denied access to pay increments or further training in the PQ framework. In the longer term, they may not be eligible for certain types of registration.

Ultimately, individual social workers must commit themselves to their own development. But employers and staff involved in providing post-qualifying training, with PQ1 as the first stage, must recognise that, in a diverse and differently trained workforce, there should be a variety of routes leading to qualification.

Staff must feel safe enough to discuss their individual learning needs, not just in an academic environment or with mentors, but with their line managers too. The likely range of needs should be acknowledged and supported at all levels of the organisation, with resources allocated to preparing staff to undertake PQ1 if this is necessary. At Surrey social services, for example, information sessions for staff are now held to explain the expectations of PQ1, and the requirements of a competence-based approach to study. Staff are then given an opportunity to attend a return to study course if they think this will help them manage the academic requirements of PQ1 more effectively.

Mentors and line managers also need to extend their awareness of the services available for people with dyslexia or English as a second language and to develop skills in recognising when it is appropriate to encourage staff to use them. It is demoralising for students to struggle to undertake PQ1 if their learning needs are not acknowledged, only to fail to meet the requirements when their work is assessed. If needs are addressed earlier, as part of a non-discriminatory learning or supervision contract, students can have access to the additional support they may need while they are studying for the award. CC Helen Keville was until recently human resources development manager for Surrey social services

References

¹ JM Consulting, Review of the Delivery of the Diploma in Social Work in England for the Department of Health, DoH, 2000

² JM Consulting, Review of the Content of the Diploma in Social Work - Discussion Paper, DoH, 1998