Do children in care really need social pedagogues, asks Michael Fitzpatrick, himself the parent of a looked-after child on the verge of transition to adult services
According to the draft guidance on "the physical and emotional health and well-being of looked after children and young people" produced by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (Nice) and the Social Care Institute for Excellence (Scie), social pedagogy is "an important development for all care provision". But what exactly is it?
According to the draft guidance on "the physical and emotional health and well-being of looked after children and young people" produced by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (Nice) and the Social Care Institute for Excellence (Scie), social pedagogy is "an important development for all care provision". But what exactly is it?
Social pedagogy is the latest and the hottest import in the world of British social policy. Whereas earlier models for New Labour policy came from the US - welfare-to-work from Workfare, Sure Start (Headstart), family nurse partnerships (nurse-family partnerships) - social pedagogy is European.
Barry Sheerman, Labour chair of the House of Commons' children, schools and families select committee, recently told Radio 4 listeners that 80% of Denmark's looked-after children progress to university thanks to social pedagogues (a rate some 10 times that of the UK). Perhaps in Denmark they do not also expect unqualified and transient social care staff to look after children with high levels of need.
Social pedagogy is an approach that can be traced back to the writings of Jean-Jacques Rousseau and is seen in the development of Froebel's kindergartens, and the more familiar nursery and residential schools associated with Montessori and Steiner. It attracts radical advocates who emphasise its commitment to social equality. However, it has also taken social pedagogy several decades to recover from its association with the Nazi regime. Then it was used to facilitate the extension of state authority into intimate spheres of family and personal life, just as these new Nice/Scie guidelines would incorporate the sort of intrusive and moralising therapeutic outlook that permeates public health policy into the education and social care of looked-after children.
It seems likely that the main appeal for New Labour is that a social pedagogue is not a social worker, that most disparaged and discredited professional of the past 10 years. A combination of managerialism, marketisation and scapegoating by politicians and the media has produced widespread demoralisation among social workers. The social pedagogue - new, glossy, Scandinavian, spouting platitudes about providing a "holistic package of support" and "integrated care and education" - emerges as the solution to a problem largely created by New Labour.
It is typical that this new Nice/Scie guidance fails to acknowledge the achievements of the current social care system, despite all its inadequacies. My son, like many others, has thrived in care through the dedicated efforts of high quality staff supported by high levels of professional expertise, efforts that generally receive little public recognition and inadequate remuneration.
The draft guidance is full of familiar jargon and waffle about "delivering excellent, world class, services". But there is no need to go in search of gimmicks to Denmark or Germany or even Pennsylvania, or to return to cultish and outmoded psychological theories of attachment and personal development to find out what children in care need.
It is straightforward. Children need care from well-trained and well-qualified staff. To attract and retain such staff, and prevent the rapid turnover that causes distressing disruptions to relationships and loss of continuity of care, they need to be well-paid and their activities need to be well-resourced. Politicians could help by ceasing to produce more policy guidance like this, by ceasing their bad-mouthing of social workers and by putting the pedagogues on their bicycles.
Michael Fitzpatrick is a GP in Hackney, east London
Barry Sheerman, Labour chair of the House of Commons' children, schools and families select committee, recently told Radio 4 listeners that 80% of Denmark's looked-after children progress to university thanks to social pedagogues (a rate some 10 times that of the UK). Perhaps in Denmark they do not also expect unqualified and transient social care staff to look after children with high levels of need.
Social pedagogy is an approach that can be traced back to the writings of Jean-Jacques Rousseau and is seen in the development of Froebel's kindergartens, and the more familiar nursery and residential schools associated with Montessori and Steiner. It attracts radical advocates who emphasise its commitment to social equality. However, it has also taken social pedagogy several decades to recover from its association with the Nazi regime. Then it was used to facilitate the extension of state authority into intimate spheres of family and personal life, just as these new Nice/Scie guidelines would incorporate the sort of intrusive and moralising therapeutic outlook that permeates public health policy into the education and social care of looked-after children.
It seems likely that the main appeal for New Labour is that a social pedagogue is not a social worker, that most disparaged and discredited professional of the past 10 years. A combination of managerialism, marketisation and scapegoating by politicians and the media has produced widespread demoralisation among social workers. The social pedagogue - new, glossy, Scandinavian, spouting platitudes about providing a "holistic package of support" and "integrated care and education" - emerges as the solution to a problem largely created by New Labour.
It is typical that this new Nice/Scie guidance fails to acknowledge the achievements of the current social care system, despite all its inadequacies. My son, like many others, has thrived in care through the dedicated efforts of high quality staff supported by high levels of professional expertise, efforts that generally receive little public recognition and inadequate remuneration.
The draft guidance is full of familiar jargon and waffle about "delivering excellent, world class, services". But there is no need to go in search of gimmicks to Denmark or Germany or even Pennsylvania, or to return to cultish and outmoded psychological theories of attachment and personal development to find out what children in care need.
It is straightforward. Children need care from well-trained and well-qualified staff. To attract and retain such staff, and prevent the rapid turnover that causes distressing disruptions to relationships and loss of continuity of care, they need to be well-paid and their activities need to be well-resourced. Politicians could help by ceasing to produce more policy guidance like this, by ceasing their bad-mouthing of social workers and by putting the pedagogues on their bicycles.
Michael Fitzpatrick is a GP in Hackney, east London
What a naive view...I did the four year qualification of a social pedagogue in Germany and working over here in residential homes I do see the difference, as back home we actively worked with the children, whereas over here often it feels like that people in residential care are just "stored." If he would see the difference it makes he would not put it down...and one thing is for sure if my children would ever need care in a residential home I would make damn sure that their staff is proper qualified, which means they surely would not be looked after over here.
I am writing in response to the column by Michael Fitzpatrick, “Does the UK really need social pedagogues?” For proponents of Social Pedagogy, myself included, a critical voice is welcome and I look forward with anticipation to enter into further dialogue with Dr Fitzpatrick.
Dr Fitzpatrick asks a pertinent question, “But what exactly is it?”. In the years that I have been interviewing and placing Social Pedagogues in employment in the UK – and over the years some of those Social Pedagogues have become friends, which has given me the opportunity to learn more and more – I too initially struggled with the notion that the identity of Social Pedagogy is its non-identity.(Hamburger, Franz (2008) Einfuehrung in die Sozialpaedagogik (p 11)) I appreciate that a column such as the one Dr Fitzpatrick writes does not afford the space for a fuller exploration of the question about the identity of Social Pedagogy. And this is perhaps the point of such a question and such dialogue; it is a complex question and the question closer to home of a role for Social Pedagogy in the UK more complex still. Time is needed to understand this professional approach, to look at practice examples in other countries, to examine the differences and similarities between systems, both political, social as well as cultural in the UK and countries in which Social Pedagogy is practiced. There is also work to be done in drawing the lines between UK practice and traditions and social pedagogic practice.
The journey of exploration is perhaps better undertaken with a map, a compass, suitable clothing and possibly a bicycle, depending on the terrain. That is to say, being equipped with accurate information is helpful for the debate. So too is a respect for the profession of others. Dr Fitzpatrick, when he speaks of “waffle” and “gimmicks” does not show the regard for a discipline which requires 3 to 5 years of study and perhaps weakens his position as opponent by running the risk of alienating partners in dialogue due to disrespectful vocabulary. With good grace, I take this within the context that short, sharp and punchy polemic is more effective in generating responses. I would nonetheless make an appeal for the respect of the profession of Social Pedagogy and for the people who are Social Pedagogues, whether they practice in Denmark, in Germany or the UK. I see the faces of individuals I know as I make this appeal.
Dr Fitzpatrick is criticising the policy and the politics. I wonder if I am understanding him correctly? Is there a concern that Social Pedagogy threatens the identity of Social Work? In this context, Dr Fitzpatrick is possibly unaware that the degrees of many Social Pedagogues, in Germany for example, are dual degrees, “Social Pedagogy/Social Work” and there are Social Pedagogues working as Social Workers in this country, registered with the GSCC and practicing in children’s services, adults’ services, mental health services and older people’s services. I am not sure where this leaves his speculation that the appeal for New Labour is the Social Pedagogues’ non-Social Worker status? Social Pedagogues (I speak of Germany specifically) are awarded their degrees on completion of their studies, they then choose whether to practice in so-called fieldwork or direct work, or both, throughout their careers.
These decisions are personal and professional choices. A comparison between, for example, an English local authority residential care worker salary and a Social Pedagogue salary in Europe, will highlight that it is not more attractive salaries that mean qualified staff undertake direct work in Europe.
Dr Fitzpatrick makes a plea for a well-trained, well-qualified staff – who should also be well paid and have access to well-funded resources. I think this plea would find few opponents. The question is less about what is desirable and more about the steps to reach what is desirable. I would ask what qualifications and training he is suggesting?
Aside from the ever difficult question of funding, there are a multitude of issues to be considered when taking stock of where we are now with, for example, residential care. I disagree that the problem is “largely created by New Labour”. At a certain point, practice lost the theory and practitioners never recovered confidence following the abuse scandals in residential child care and with it the status and regard from society at large and, I respectfully suggest, some associated professionals. This certainly predates New Labour and is far too complex to be attributed to remuneration alone.
Dr Fitzpatrick seems to be under the impression that Social Pedagogy is being imposed, top down. Whilst the DCSF are funding a pilot project to explore the potential of Social Pedagogy in residential child care settings in England – and - policy documents do point up the merit of further exploring the social pedagogic approach, there are also, other things happening. It is perhaps all too easy in our busy lives to attach ourselves to simple depictions and polarity, whereas in reality things are more diverse and layered. I believe it is clear for all those involved in the DCSF project that it is a journey of exploration, with no foregone conclusion. In addition, quite apart from being a top-down phenomenon, there are pockets of passionate and enthusiastic interest in the practice of Social Pedagogy. Some of this interest pre-dates any mention of Social Pedagogy in green or white papers and also pre-dates my involvement in this area and others are better positioned to provide further detail. I can comment on an increase in the number of these pockets of interest in the past 2 to 3 years. As I travel all over the country, speaking with staff in residential homes, time and again I hear about the resonance this approach has with the way they practiced many years ago and the way they would like practice to be now. These pockets of interest could become easily fragmented and it is, in part, for this reason that the meeting of like-minded people, and opponents of Social Pedagogy meeting in dialogue is important. There is a forum for this that is organised voluntarily by a group of organisations – it is the Social Pedagogy Development Network. I know I am not alone in extending a very warm welcome to Dr Fitzpatrick at our next meeting on 18th June.
Abby Ladbrooke
Managing Director - Jacaranda
Dr Fitzpatrick asks a pertinent question about Social Pedagogy, “What exactly is it?” I, too, initially struggled with the notion that its identity is its non-identity . Time and space is needed to understand this professional approach and draw the connecting lines between it and UK traditions and practice.
The journey of exploration is better undertaken with a map, compass and perhaps a bicycle, depending on the terrain - i.e. being equipped with accurate information is helpful for the debate, as is respect for others’ professions, which is absent with Dr Fitzpatrick reference to “waffle” and “gimmicks”. But polemic is more effective in creating response.
He criticizes policy and politics and articulates a concern that Social Pedagogy threatens the identity of Social Work. Is he aware, for example, of the German dual degree “Social Work/Social Pedagogy” and that many Social Pedagogues practice so-called fieldwork in the UK? Graduates choose their area of work and it’s not due to attractive salaries that qualified staff undertakes direct work in Europe. In taking stock of where we are in, e.g. residential care here, remuneration alone is not the reason for the problems faced; it is far more complex e.g. practice lost the theory; practitioners struggle to regain confidence following abuse scandals.
Dr Fitzpatrick believes the approach is imposed top-down. The interest in the approach pre-dates policy references and the DCSF pilot is itself a journey of exploration, based on the evidence from research conducted to date.
Like-minded people meet in the Social Pedagogy Development Network and dialogue with others forms an important part of the space provided in that forum. We extend a warm welcome to Dr Fitzpatrick for the next meeting in June.
Full response at: www.SocialPedagogyUK.com in Publications and Media
Abby Ladbrooke
Managing Director, Jacaranda
Michael Fitzpatrick is right to say that many care-experienced young people thrive in the ‘looked-after’ system, and that they benefit greatly from the dedicated efforts of good quality staff who have high levels of professional expertise. These sentiments are echoed throughout the NICE/SCIE guidance document where good practice and exceptional care is acknowledged.
However, I wonder if I can point out a couple of factual inaccuracies in his blog:
Firstly, social pedagogy isn’t recommended in the NICE/SCIE draft guidance. A range of experienced health and social care practitioners, topic experts and care-experienced adults and young people were members of an independent committee which developed the draft guidance. They didn’t hear conclusive evidence about how effective social pedagogy is, as it has not yet been fully evaluated in the UK. For that reason, NICE/SCIE draft guidance on looked-after children does not make any recommendations on social pedagogy.
It may be of interest to readers to know that at the moment, social pedagogy methods are being evaluated in a pilot programme which is funded by the Department for Children, Schools and Families.
Secondly, the draft NICE / SCIE guidance is now out for consultation, so as yet it is not actual final guidance. Interested organisations have been invited to register as stakeholders and to take part in the dialogue and critique about the draft recommendations. It’s important to get all views on board so that, by the time the final recommendations are published in the autumn, effective change can be brought to the physical and emotional health and well-being of children and young people who are care-experienced.
We invite Michael’s further thoughts on this topic by suggesting he join the stakeholder consultation and engage in what is a robust process getting to the heart of the evidence-base. Interestingly, one member of the independent committee, Colin, has written a blog: as well as describing his good care experiences, Colin believes the guidance also addresses some of his negative experiences. For him, the most important issue is that each recommendation is implemented and becomes common practice.
The draft guidance is available on the NICE website via http://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/index.jsp?action=folder&o=47410. Organisations wishing to submit comments are invited to do so via the NICE website between Monday 15 February and Wednesday 14 April 2010. Only stakeholders can comment formally on consultations, but organisations in England, Wales and Northern Ireland can register to be a stakeholder at anytime during the process. Visit http://www.nice.org.uk/ourguidance/niceguidancebytype/publichealthguidance/stakeholderregistration/ph_stakeholder_registration.jsp for more information.
Amanda Edwards, Deputy Chief Executive, Social Care Institute for Excellence