10 reasons I disagree with Frontline and fast-tracking Social Work Training


Frontline is a scheme dreamt up by the IPPR who published a report – which has since been embraced by the government and opposition – which builds on the Step Up to Social Work model of social work training and Teach First which has proved to be a popular want to pull graduates into teaching, focussing on ‘difficult’ schools.

The idea behind it, based on research done with a focus group made up of people who had been teachers on the Teach First programme saw that there was ‘something wrong with social work’. A part of me says ‘tell us something we didn’t know’. Seriously. There have been proposals to change in the way that social work is taught which have stemmed from the Social Work Taskforce and then the Social Work Reform Board.

So what is it that will make ‘Frontline’ different? The initial paper linked to above, makes reference to Oxbridge and Russell Group graduates who aren’t choosing to go into social work and seeing that as a ‘problem’ for the profession.

According to the Frontline website

The Frontline training programme will last two years. Specifically

  • An intensive five-week residential summer institute;
  • The first 12 months as intensive on-the-job training and education;
  • At the end of the first year participants will be qualified to practice and then undertake a second year as a newly qualified social worker.

Participants will be paid over these two years and will be based with the same local authority. Participant will complete a Masters over the two years of the programme.

The 12 months will be when people go to local authorities to be trained by a ‘consultant social worker’ who is basically a glorified practice educators who have their salaries augmented by ‘Frontline’ – which, incidentally, is either a charity or a social enterprise – depending on what you are reading.  The social worker trainees will be working in ‘tough’ environments.

The idea is that these people will be ‘qualified’ social workers after one year and the second year will be the AYSE year. One year (or 13 months, I believe cos these whizzy geniuses sure can count).

So who is Frontline looking for?

Frontline will look for two key features in recruits. The first is high academic ability required to be an effective social worker. Social work practice requires analytical thinking, assessment skills, critical reflection and excellent written and spoken communication, which is why applicants must have a 2:1 degree or higher.

The second feature is the attributes, skills and values to be a successful practitioner. These range from emotional resilience, respect, good judgement, inter-personal skills, and humility

I love the intense irony that humility is written right at the bottom. I’m not one to rubbish academic rigour. I’m all for it but I think it’s interesting that it is the first thing they emphasise. People develop intelligence in different ways and having a 2:1 degree from a Russell Group university is only one indication but that’s their standard so fair enough. Just interesting emphasis.

So that’s the scheme and what’s not to love? I have a number of issues that have concerned me, none of which have been addressed by Frontline PR machine. I’m concerned that while they have said they want to engage and talk to social workers about this, there has been no evidence of them speaking to anyone except on their own terms, without actually answering questions of substance. Meanwhile, the PR machine flounces around the press with the ‘they just don’t understaaaaaaaaaaaaand’ us referring to social workers who don’t ‘get’ their new model without actually addressing the very real criticisms.

So what are the criticisms?

1) It is based on an elitist model where some universities are ‘better’ than others. The initial document refers to lack of entrants to social work training from Oxbridge and Russell Group universities being evidence of its lack of appeal. I’m not sure about ‘evidence’ for this. I don’t think the university you go to defines your quality of potential for social work or your intelligence and ability to critically analyse and reflect. Sometimes it’s based on income and family circumstances. Sometimes we go to the university that is nearest home. Sometimes we go to the university that offers the best course which may not be a Russell Group. It shows an enormous amount of assumptions (which, incidentally, are very bad in social work) to take otherwise

2) Lack of involvement of social workers in developing the model. Now Josh MacAlister, the so-called ‘brains’ behind the scheme has recruited some social worker managers and academics to ‘support’ him but that doesn’t refute the lack of involvement in the initial research of social workers. Yes, spokespeople from the College of Social Work and BASW have involved themselves but they have shown no effort to engage views other than those that agree with them or work on the base of the Social Work Reform Board which particularly looked at social work education and build the new professional capability framework. This falls outside that. It also hasn’t built on the Step Up scheme which makes no sense.

3) Compressing social work education into a year, even if the practice days are similar to the amount they are now, ignores the process of learning that needs time.  There is a great post which I highly recommend which covers this far better than I can. Social Work is not analogous to teaching and somehow I think the model of Teach First doesn’t ‘fit’ as nicely as the government ministers would like to think it is. It displays a lack of understanding of social work. Teach First replaces a PGCE which is a one year course in a specialist subject (which is taught).

Social Work is a generic qualification. One does not ‘train’ as a child protection social worker or even a children and families social worker – but as a social worker who then specialises in working in a particular sector. This model doesn’t allow space and time to gain an understanding of what social work is. The fear is, it will breed process-driven staff who are able to fulfil functions within a child protection team but without a deeper understanding of social work as a profession which touches the lives of adults and children in different ways and at different stages.

Moving initial social work training – not least in an organisation which doesn’t understand social work, clearly, is, I fear a mistake. One of the figures behind Frontline told me that this was a poor argument as ‘there had always been arguments about genericism’. In my view that doesn’t mean we can’t still have the discussion. We need to have an understanding of personhood and social work as a whole profession because if we don’t it becomes two, or three professions. Does that matter? I think it does because we can’t work in isolation. Mental Health, for example, covers all areas of social work. Families don’t exist in isolation. Is one year (13 months) enough time to do this alongside placements? Personally, i don’t think so. I’m consistent in this as I also don’t  have a lot of time for the Step Up programme.

4) Evidence base – why wasn’t there a hold on developing a new scheme until there had been a few years running of the Step Up Scheme? I was a sceptic of Step Up and I’ll accept that the first evaluation of the first two cohorts was more positive than I was assuming but there were some issues raised and what we really need to understand is retention rates which will need a few more years of evaluation. I’m willing to change my mind in the face of evidence but developing a programme before we had some data seems foolhardy but entirely consistent with government policy making. The one issue which did arise from the Step Up scheme was access and success rates of people from minority ethic groups who were disadvantaged. The Frontline team looks very white and very male. I wonder how this will be addressed explicitly.

5) There is no mention at all of user voice in the development of the programme of education. This is a massive gap but I will wait for details of the programme. It’s all about developing leaders. Frontline’s website says

Since the start of 2012 we’ve undertaken extensive consultation with the profession to inform the Frontline proposal. Employers, universities and professional bodies were included in the process and much of their feedback is directly reflected in our plans.

No mention of people who use or have used social work services, children who have been or are involved with social work or their parents and carers. Nothing. That evidences a lack of understanding of social work education and ethos as, quite rightly, user involvement is crucial to all social work education programmes.

6) Leadership. There is a focus on this being about ‘leaders’ and developing leadership. I have a bit of a difficult relationship with the term and with some of the ‘leadership’ training. We all want and need to be ‘leaders’, don’t we? But who are we leading. Here are some of the statements made on the Frontline site.

Frontline is focused on transforming the life chances of vulnerable children by recruiting and developing outstanding individuals to be leaders in social work and broader society

So is this about fast-tracking people through the actual ‘frontline’ work as a stepping stone to management and management consultancy? I rather suspect it is. I want to know more about what they see as leadership? Ah, they heard me, look at their FAQs

18. WHY DO YOU CALL SOCIAL WORK A LEADERSHIP PROFESSION?

We describe social work as leadership because it needs people who are able to bring together a wide range of agencies, set out a vision for a family and convince them to act. The ability to adapt and deal with change, set clear priorities and deliver action for children under extreme pressure demands leadership qualities which we would like to see recognised more widely in society.

Note: There is no understanding or explanation of social work that happens which doesn’t involve working with children. It’s about ‘convincing’ a family to act? Really? Is that leadership or is that using statutory power to impose. There is nothing in this bumpf about power that a social worker has and the understanding of the use of power. No, they emphasis ‘leadership’ and ‘leading’ but as a statutory social worker in child protection, you have all the cards in your powerful little statutory hand and I’m not sure it takes much ‘leadership’ to ‘convince’ families. Again, it’s a complete misunderstanding of the social work role and selling an untruth to those who take on the role.  So if Frontline ‘breeding’ leaders or are we all leaders? Bit fuzzy but then this is to sell social work to people who would otherwise consider Teach First.

7) The rhetoric of those involved with the PR has been very much ‘we need excellent/better social workers’ ‘social work education is failing’ and it’s interesting how many academics have jumped on this bandwagon. Er, guys, you’re the ones doing the training?!

Seriously though, it’s not exactly going to endear you to a profession by saying that current social workers and social work students aren’t adequate. I see that they’ve backed down a bit from that but that was definitely the initial thrust behind their PR campaign – we need ‘better’ social workers. What they are creating, I fear, are people able to work through processes in particular local authorities effectively. Is that social work at all? Does doing social work tasks make one a social worker? Unfortunately I suspect the answer is yes because that’s what employers want.

8) Local authorities should take a greater responsibility for the ‘failure’ of social work training. They want ‘cookie cutter’ ready-to-practice social workers immediately from university without investing in the process of training on-the-job. In my view, and I say this as an ex-practice educator, placements are training to be a social worker but should not be used to train for a particular position. Students need space around the placements to understand processes, power and to analyse their own changing roles as they move between being students to being practitioners with power. What local authorities want, and through this scheme they get, is more akin to apprenticeships where social workers will be trained in their own systems. There’s an advantage to that. There’s also a potential disadvantage as one of the things I found most valuable in moving from being a student to a practitioners was being exposed to different systems, different organisations and different people who had different views about the same statutory function.

9) This has shifted the focus away from post-qualification training and towards pre-qualification training without any evidence about retention. It seems to me that a better focus would be to invest in training and retaining social workers who are qualified already. I say this with a little bitterness as a social worker remained in local authority/NHS practice for 12 years before moving away. I think there needs to be more thought specifically for post-qualification training in child protection with perhaps, a course akin to the AMHP training in mental  health with better pay and status  – and a need for greater experience before going into these roles.

In my opinion, one of the failings of the social work system we have is that often newly qualified social workers go into child protection work. Surely it makes more sense for there to be career progression and more experienced workers to be in this field but no one wants to stay so there is a rapid turnover. Maybe that’s something that should be addressed with the money Frontline generated instead of making the problem worse.

10) Frontline seem obsessed with social work’s ‘professional status’. They want social workers to be one of the most respected professions blah blah. By focusing on ‘leadership’ and recruiting ‘top graduates’ this will happen. Right. I’m more sceptical. I think it will only happen when social workers don’t obsess about their/own status and when we speak up for people who use social work services – without our job role and outside and show how useful we are. We don’t need validation and we don’t need to be ‘loved’. We don’t need documentaries so people ‘understand’ us. We need to do our job well and not wait for others to find the respect for us. If we tell people what we do well, if we concentrate on developing a profession where we can respect ourselves, then we will be respected and some people will always hate us because we use state powers to control behaviours. That’s life.

I hope someone from Frontline will respond to these ten points in turn. I wait with interest.

 

15 thoughts on “10 reasons I disagree with Frontline and fast-tracking Social Work Training

  1. Although I am not in the UK I follow this story with interest. Teach First has begun in New Zealand despite some opposition. It is offered out of the Faculty in which I teach social work. Your blog is excellent and summarises the major concerns as I have been reading them in tweets and other articles.

  2. Cb, it’s so good to see you back. I’ve missed your blog and its insight into social work policy.
    There are things happening up here in Scotland re social work; the new Public Bodies Joint Working Scotland bill is just starting its passage through Holyrood. This is proposing to integrate health and social care for the elderly. It’s going to be interesting, esp the shared budget bit..

    Just one more thing. Where’s Kittenwar?

    • Hi and thanks and I’ll have to sort that out with Kittenwar. I can’t for the life of me think why I removed it.. It will return today. Promise 🙂

  3. Hello CB

    Very glad to hear from you again.

    I think your analysis that this scheme may produce superficially competent but rather callow in judgment staff who are likely to be wedded to LA processes for lack of any wider perspective is very good. Also, I think you skewer the disingenuousness of some of the academics participating in the current training arrangement but eager to participate in this go round quite nicely too.

    Don’t wish to worry anybody but, The Spectator thinks this Frontline lark is a good idea too.

    http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/9006301/the-charity-that-could-make-you-love-social-workers/

    I think this proposal is wonkery gone badly wrong. Don’t understand what the profession’s about and don’t understand core functions? Never mind: talk about ‘leadership’ in the profession in vague but impassioned terms instead! I’ve heard IPPR spokeswonks on the Today programme several times addressing different social care related topics dropping basic clangers that should give concern about the value of any policy ideas they generate. Rather hope that in future, the College of Social Work will take up the slack to prevent the agenda for SW development being tied up in knots by think tanks.

    The idea of introducing an officer class into recalcitrant public sector professions comes up from time to time. It was the turn of the Police for this discussion last year. Interesting to see that Social Workers haven’t been bracketed with nurses, who apparently all need to spend more time in core practice roles before being translated into management roles.

    • Thanks for that. Yes, I can definitely see that. My own feeling is that these think tank wonks are barely pausing for breath on their respective ways to careers in politics. To them, this is nothing to do with social work. It’s blatantly clear they have no understanding or interest in the profession. It’s about picking a politically expedient issue which can get them, individually, to the attention if national politicians for their own ends.

      My prediction? We see MacAlister moving into career politics and this is a convenient stepping stone. Transforming social work is a means to an end where the end is his own career. Sadly politicians and crony press fall for it because he and his team can hoodwink with falsehood (because I think there are fundamental factual errors in that Spectator piece).

      I await more robust opposition from the College of Social Work, BASW and the Chief Social Workers.

      I expect to be waiting a while.

  4. Okay, forgive the ignorant Canadian, but… Oxbridge I understand, but what is a Russell Group university? And have these people never heard that there are different types of IQ? And….I can’t begin to describe the shivers going down my spine. Is this actually an undergrad program? 13 months is less that our diploma of social work grads have here, and they are no longer able to register as a social worker.

    • Hi 🙂 Russell Group – I guess think ‘Ivy League’ type-thing. It’s a group of so-called ‘top’ universities. It’s very subjective and incredibly snobby in my opinion as people don’t always have completely free choice about which uni they go to – may have family commitments etc. it’s a postgrad course but not enough to be a full Masters by itself.

      I just think it needs more time and thought really…

  5. Pingback: Frontline and symbolic violence | A Kind of 'trouble'...

  6. Hi
    I read the points laid out in your blog with interest. Ironically I am a Russell Group graduate, for what it is worth having obtained my degree 32 years ago. I went on to train as a social worker and in my case I have worked children and families for 24 years. Social work needs some academic vigour, however, as some one who returned to the inner city area where I lived , went to school and was/still part of the community, those experiences were just as iportant. Given that high education is now every expensive, the Frontline scheme is in danger of excluding someone like me who was a working class kid, from a family with not much money but who happened to be smart. Like many I have stayed at the frontline for years working other community.

  7. I have a relative in hospital and was able to observe the processes – we definitely need anthropologists and sociologists looking at how we are doing things. For example, a very large company looks after the food processes, I rarely saw nurses and most interactions were with health assistants. But global health thinking is asking serious questions about relationships between nutrition, disease and recovery, are not the environment one is in and the interactions one has important?

    I understand these proposals as symptomatic of something else – the losing of the ability to think about person centred co-operative mutual systems – and their replacement with lots of specialists doing stuff in the hope that the spruce goose will fly (OK it did!)

Comments are closed.