7 Responses to Leadership training programme launched for PSWs, AMHP leads and principal OTs in adults’ services

  1. Anonymous March 27, 2024 at 7:12 pm #

    While it’s a positive step and a fantastic opportunity for a few BME practitioners who were likely to progress anyway. I’d be concerned that this positive discrimination will be felt as another set back by aspiring white practitioners who are struggling to progress in their careers, creating resentment and frustration that could be misinterpreted if expressed.

    • James M March 27, 2024 at 11:06 pm #

      This reads like sour grapes to me.

      • Sentence April 2, 2024 at 12:20 pm #

        And the DEI agenda as a whole doesn’t?

        • Gerald April 3, 2024 at 5:31 pm #

          Erm… What? Make it make sense with more than 1 sentence.

  2. Anonymous March 29, 2024 at 7:44 am #

    Not at all. I did think someone may interpret it that way, but this wouldn’t actually affect me. The comment was meant as an acknowledgment of the negative impact that positive discrimination can sometimes have if not managed correctly. As a profession that prides itself on anti discrimination, positive discrimination shouldn’t be needed. Every professional should have the same opportunity for progression based on their skill level.

    AMHP lead posts account for only 4% of AMHPs, and 23% of AMHPs are from BME backgrounds, so statistically speaking, 1% of AMHP leads should be from BME backgrounds. That is 38 posts in total. the proposal would equate to the equivalent of 100 aspiring leaders for AMHP lead posts from BME backgrounds for those 38 posts, not accounting for AMHPs leads who are already from BME backgrounds.

    If LAs put forward 2 additional aspiring leaders from BME backgrounds, that would be 302 additional BME workers already trained for 456 lead posts Nationally, so the idea is that workers from BME backgrounds would replace the lead post currently being put forward for the training. This seems a disproportionate number in my view. A more proportionate approach would be to offer 2 posts for aspiring leaders, with at least 1 post ring fenced for workers from a BME background.

    I’m just saying that these specific leadership roles are few and far between, and it would be better for the profession if everyone had the same opportunities to progress into them. If we’re concerned about the values of senior leadership blocking progression of BME workers within social work, let’s solve that, not limit progression of an already limited profession.

  3. Tahin March 31, 2024 at 9:47 am #

    Only a ‘profession’ with no discernable leadership qualities would hail 5 online “learning sessions”, more than likely ‘informed’ by AI generated ‘knowledge’, as a “leadership training programme”. No doubt the “what I did on my holidays” rigour of the homework will add to the production of leaders capable of understanding, supervising, analysing, promoting social work and social workers and with the motivation and resilience to challenge some of the more lamentable not to add dangerous fads that pass as “essential qualities and knowledge” in current social work. When I qualified in 1980 and started my first job my team leader spent time with me looking at my experience and my learning needs and then structured supervision and training support to develop me into a competent social worker. There was an expectation, and and acceptance on my part, that I would need 3 years to build my skills, confidence and resilience. I would take that face to face real time real context support over this iteration of computer based social work anyday. We were encouraged to be self critical, question why we were social workers and think through what we thought our purpose was in the days of pen and paper social work. Dinosaurs versus Instagram, TikTok, Twitter/X social work. Picks your choice, picks your qualities. Dare our ‘Leaders’ ask users of services what they think?

  4. Sandy April 4, 2024 at 8:25 am #

    I agree with most of what Tahin says. I also think that piecemeal strategies which in all likelihood aim to meet a ‘target’ can’t deliver the changes we need. If SWE was a half competent Regulator it would set out a long-term plan for what the profession should be in 5 years. It would be spelling out the stepping stones which LAs and other employers of social workers would be expected to embark on and met. It’s shameful that SWE hides behind the “we are not an employing body” excuse when the failings of and challenges to social work are profession wide, region wide and partners wide. Employers aren’t interested in quality social work when prioritising finance over delivery. SWE is a one trick pony that believes FtP is it’s main locus of its purpose. However much it prattles on about standards in training institutions.

Leave a Reply