Protecting Our Children

Says it all really jeni. Yet another 'unimportant thing' SW's don't do; now they refer people to Welfare Rights advisors instead. I am still employed as a Social Worker but even I don't know what we do any more.

The thing that amazes me is sw ignorance of the benefit system. This can be of vital importance to their customers and make all the difference to their lives.
Why are they not taught at least a minimum. I have in the past given talks to various people about dla, but only once to social workers

Mishap - Unfortunately I think Social Work training is still the same. There is still an enormous emphasis on 'anti-discriminatory practice' at the expense of all else. Even this only seems to include race and gender issues; there does not seem to be much awareness of disability (in Children's Services anyway) and none at all of class. Maybe this is why many newly qualified Social Workers seem unable to relate to most of their clients (not allowed to call them that any more).

Don't even get me started on literacy! As Carol points out, Social Workers need to be able to produce reports to a very high standard and yet many of the reports I see now are indecipherable, with random spellings and no apparent rules of grammar. The meaning of the report is often completely lost, if indeed it ever had one. Social Workers cannot then expect to be taken seriously as professionals or as advocates for the families or children they work with. I find it mystifying that these people have achieved a degree whereas standards seemed so much higher when there was a diploma route. And yes it is still virtually impossible to fail a student, whatever the quality of their practice. I took the decision a few years ago that I would no longer take students as I found the whole process a farce.

I also agree with Greatnan about observing contact; when I used to do this I would try to get involved and try to put the parents and children at ease, before backing off and allowing them to enjoy the time together, stepping in when necessary. It is still possible to observe and assess but not usually necessary to make contemporaneous notes. These days however contact is usually supervised by 'Contact Workers; unqualified staff who have to report back to the Social Worker so they do tend to sit taking notes. It seems to me that Social Workers have relinquished so many of their roles because they should be 'doing the important things' (that's a direct quote from my Service Manager by the way) that we have all forgotten what the important things really are.

It takes time Annobel, but they got there in the end.

And so it should be. When I was on teaching practice, 50 years ago, I was left to take charge of what was then called a 'remedial' class - all very nice kids, but I thought then that anyone who took responsibility for pupils with learning difficulties deserved recognition which they were not given.

Oh yes, and very high status it is too.

Good heavens! only four years since I ceased to be a school governor and what they called a SENCO then is now an Inclusion Manager!

Oh dear Greatnan, if you were still teaching today you would be called the Inclusion Manager, you would be on the Senior Leadership Team, be a VERY IMPORTANT PERSON and would earn a fine fat salary!

I have long thought that nobody should be allowed to be a teacher or social worker until they have had some experience of life outside of college/university. When I did my teacher training (in 1967 -71) there were students that I would not have allowed to walk my dog. One girl failed teaching practice three times - the college just kept giving her another chance. The mature students made up 10% of the total intake, but we took 60% of the prizes. I have the argument that if we don't rope them in at 18 they won't come into the profession later on - good!
Very, very few teachers are sacked for incompetence, yet all of us who have taught can remember the bullies, the inadequate, the lazy, the psychos - the solution for most heads seemed to be to give them a glowing reference so they became someone else's problems.
I taught in one Catholic High school which had been formed from a small grammar school and a large secondary modern. The Head had always worked in highly academic Christian Brothers schools and had no concept of the lives of 80% of his pupils. One boy came in, shivering and dirty, and told me he had slept in a bus shelter along with his mother and sister as his dad had come home raging drunk and thrown them out. I arranged for the canteen to give him some breakfast, and took him to the head to see if we could get some family support. The head looked at him and said 'Where's your tie, Jones?' All the Head of Department posts went to ex-grammar school teachers, apart from me - I was Head of the Remedial Department. I was more or less told that it didn't matter what I did with my classes, as they would never pass exams anyway. The attitude of many of my colleagues was disdainful towards my pupils (and me, although I had a Good Honours degree and an MEd.) I was asked if I did remedial work because I couldn't get a better job.
I sincerely hope things have changed but sometimes I hear suggestions that schools should be training pupils for work - isn't that the job of employers?
Perhaps my own far from privileged background helped me to empathise with my pupils, or the fact that I already had two children before I began teacher training , one of whom was dyslexic and a pain to her teachers.
Unfortunately, it seems to me that some people who claw their way up the professional ladder want to kick it down behind them.

With regards to training, I don't know what the up to date position is, but when my daughter, who has a 2:1 degree in sociology and psychology in addition to working at NACRO and a PCT and has travelled for a year, wanted to do social work, she was told that she would need to have a degree in social work. Not a one year masters or post graduate training, but a new undergraduate degree. Needless to say she went for another career option. Very sad IMO.

Hear Hear! Mishap. I trained similarly to you, and in latter years have been dismayed at the standard and values of new recruits. When we were recruited, one important criterion was some life experience, then there was the ability to relate to people from all walks of life, as well as to be able to think and reflect, and to write reports and records to a high standard. I have had students in my office crying and pleading not to have to talk to dangerous offenders because they don't know what to say!! What the bloody hell did they think they would be doing when they successfully applied to train as a probation officer?

Home Start is an excellent organisation using local volunteers to help families in need of all sorts of support. It's also a good way to try different sorts of community and social work if you are thinking of a career in this area, and want to know what it might entail.

On the SW training thread, I did a social science degree and then a post grad diploma in social work, concentrating mainly on the medical social work thread. I was financed by the Home Office for the post grad bit - I even had an extra bit of cash added because my OH was a student - he went down as a dependent relative. I suspect that was why he proposed!

Latterly I was a SW practice teacher and I can only say that I was horrified by the training that modern SWs were receiving (we are talking about 10 years ago). The obsession was with "anti-discriminatory practice." Now don't misunderstand me, I am wholeheartedly against racial and other discrimination, but I think a SW needs more than the ability not to discriminate - they need some real solid tools of the trade. Several of the students who went through my hands were barely literate and yet I was not allowed to fail them, however poor their practice - as long as they had all the PC jargon, they got through, even though I might have observed them behaving quite inappropriately on a family visit.

When I was training, the mantra of "start where the client is and if you don't understand where they are then make it your job to find out" was taught. In other words, if you are working with someone from a particular minority, work at putting yourself in their place, and if there are things about their culture that you do not understand, then research it - or ask the family themselves!

I was very troubled by what I experienced and concerned for the SWs who went out into the field ill-equipped - not fair on them or the recipients of their work.

I do not know what the current situation is - I hope that things have improved.

One idea not put forward for the family in the TV programme was the use of Home Start - their volunteers can be excellent and have the virtue of being fellow Mums, which feels less threatening. I helped to set up a Home Start branch in my area many years ago - if any grans out there are at a loose end and want to be a part of something really worthwhile, then look no further than Home Start.

I have observed through a one way window and been in a room taking notes, and in all cases the families have been aware and it hasn't made much difference - some people make more effort or try to make eye contact with you to see how they're doing when you're in the room, and some people forget you're around and just get on with it. Others just don't have the wherewithall to be able to play and interact in any constructive way with their children, and a trained and experienced professional will take all these variables into account. It depends where the contact is taking place and if a room with one way window is available, too. The best experiences I have observed have been in NSPCC offices, where the public areas and children's room are so child-friendly that families can ease in to the situation. Contact and Sure Start centres usually have relaxing surroundings, too.

I thought the guardian who observed the father and child in the programme was the most experienced of those who appeared, but the resources that were offered to that family were inappropriate and they should have been given other opportunties, and as has been previously mentioned, not a 'to do' list. A family worker to show them how to do things like play, clean, make rooms safe and tidy up, as well as use of appropriate language and discipline, would have been more helpful - ideally in a day or residential family centre as well as the family home. That wasn't shown, and I don't know if it was offered. I'll be interested to watch the next programes now.

I have played with my children whilst someone was observing and taking notes, so I know what it feels like. We did this for some research when my twin daughters were two, as part of some twins research at Manchester University. It did feel onerous because, despite the researcher telling me there was no pressure, I was anticipating one child having a temper tantrum, which she did frequently then, and the other child would have leapt on my knee to ensure her crying sister didn't bag the best spot first! Families do need to have the opportunity to be observed more than once to get any meaningful information.

I don't think the programme did banish our misconceptions about social workers. I am sure they were all very well intentioned, but they seemed unable to relate to the couple and did not offer any practical help. I don't think I could play with my children if I were being watched by someone making notes. It was a very artifical situation. Couldn't the note taking have been done through a one-way window? It just seemed to me to be a classic case of middle-class professionals failing to find the right level to deal with their 'clients'.

There's someone out there whose life may have been saved because of the EPO. Hope it works out well. Two social workers were on the This Morning programme today, talking about the couple and their children who were placed for adoption on the TV progamme the other night. They were saying they agreed to do the programme to try and address the misconceptions about social workers, especially after Baby P.

Yes, I think it has to be nasty to grant such a serious order. I was exhausted but the poor social workers were only part way through their evening. A horrible task but vitally necessary in this instance.

Oh dear! Hope it wasn't too nasty Nsube x

Just agreed an ex parte EPO. Shattered.

You are right Notsogrand, I am no apologist for the last Labour Government, and economic reasons have always played a part in the promotion of adoption. It just seems to me that this government is attacking the most disadvantaged members of society at a far greater rate than ever before. I fear that this will mean more children in care and a political imperative to get them placed for adoption as quickly as possible. If legal aid is also cut there will be no hope for families caught up in the system and not necessarily any better outcomes for children.

Promoting adoption as the best outcome for children in care has been the policy of both Labour & Conservative governments nightowl.

Just to add a further touch of cynicism, Greatnan, I don't think it is any coincidence that Cameron is keen to promote adoption as the answer for all children in the care system - after all, once a child is adopted the cost is transferred to the adoptive parents. Never mind how damaged, or how vulnerable the child, support after adoption is minimal (in most authorities) so massive savings all round! It makes me despair.

Oh right of course nsube that makes sense now. it's the trafficers that brief them. Like Carol i feel sorry for them and want to believe the best of people, but i must say after the little clutch we had 2 years back i am relieved no more have turned up.
It must be surreal for them to find themselves as a student in school!

'We are all in it together', mouthed Cameron. Everyone knows that the cuts in budgets are falling most heavily on the people at the very bottom of the pecking order, while his cronies in the world of finance and business continue to draw their obscene salaries and bonuses.
It is all so short-term. Cutting provision for social work, the disabled, education in prisons, drug treatments, etc will cost far more in the long term - but, who cares as long as they get another term in power.
If I sound angry - that is because I am.

Sorreeeee! I thought I'd said all my sorry's years ago - whenever the phrase 'home office sponsored' was uttered, the social work grant students would give us withering looks. Yes, the training should never have been separated - my placements with blind and profoundly deaf families, and mental health social workers in a secure unit were fantastic and so enlightening. Happy days indeed!

Yes I remember being very envious of Probation students who were sponsored while I was on a measly grant! I now realise how fortunate I was to have a grant for both my psychology degree and my CQSW, no student debts then. How sad that the training has changed, there were real benefits in having the two disciplines training together. I had an interesting placement in Probation and felt the work we did then was not dissimilar. Happy days!