This article was downloaded by: [UQ Library]On: 04 November 2014, At: 01:54Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Australian Social WorkPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rasw20

Guarding the gates of the profession: Findings of a surveyof gatekeeping mechanisms in Australian Bachelor of SocialWork programsMartin Ryan a , Daphne Habibis b & Cec Craft ba Department of Social Work and Social Policy , La Trobe University ,b Department of Sociology and Social Work , University of Tasmania , LauncestonPublished online: 01 Feb 2008.

To cite this article: Martin Ryan , Daphne Habibis & Cec Craft (1997) Guarding the gates of the profession: Findings of asurvey of gatekeeping mechanisms in Australian Bachelor of Social Work programs, Australian Social Work, 50:3, 5-12, DOI:10.1080/03124079708414092

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03124079708414092

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in thepublications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations orwarranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsedby Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified withprimary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings,demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectlyin connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematicreproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone isexpressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Guarding the gates of the profession: Findings of a survey of gatekeeping mechanisms in Australian Bachelor of Social Work programs MARTIN RYAN, DAPHNE HABIBIS AND CEC CRAFT*

Gatekeeping is concerned with ensuring that social work graduates meet requisite competency standards for beginning practitioners. The issue which is of particular concern to social work educators within academia and in the field, ultimately has important ramifications for clients, yet it is rarely systematically considered. This paper is the first of two reports on the results of a survey of Australian Bachelor of Social Work programs regarding their gatekeeping mechanisms. The study sought information on the admission criteria to courses, gatekeeping functions associated with field education, and attitudes to counselling out of students for non- academic reasons. It was found that high priority was given to academic criteria at all points in the program, despite acknowledgement in the importance of skills, values and personal qualities. Whilst counselling out for non-academic reasons was used by most schools, few schools had written policies for terminating students’ enrolment for such reasons. Most schools also reported having difficulty deciding the extent to which non-academic criteria should be applied and how this should be done.

INTRODUCTION mployers of social workers in both government E and non-government sectors rely on social work

educators to ensure that graduates enter the field with a level of competence required for professional ser- vice delivery. The acquisition of a Bachelor of Social Work degree (or its equivalent) from an accredited program provides graduates with automatic eligibil- ity for membership of the Australian Association of Social Workers. At present, once this occurs there are no further barriers to practice within the profession’.

The responsibility for protecting the integrity of the profession has therefore fallen to educational institutions. As Hughes et al. (1994) suggest: ‘Ulti- mately social work education has a responsibility to the profession and to the people it serves to ensure that graduates can perform competently and in an ethical manner’ (p. 139). Gatekeeping can be described as ‘...the professional responsibility of social work educators to determine whether a student should enter the social work profession’ (Moore & Urwin 1991, p.8). The screening of applicants and

*Martin Ryan is a senior lecturer in the Departnient of Social Work and Social Policy at La Trobe Uni\iersity. Daplzne Habihis is a senior lecturer and Cec Craft is Head of Social Work Discipline, in the Department of Socio1og.y and Social Work at the University of Tasmania, Launreston.

delivery and assessment of the curriculum are the two main ways in which this responsibility can be honoured.

There are a number of key areas of debate in the literature on gatekeeping. When gatekeeping should occur is in some dispute. Some have suggested that it should take place primarily at the ‘front door’ through admissions (Hepler & Noble 1990). Others contend that it is a continuous process which begins at admission, continues with the evaluation of poten- tial and performance during the course, particularly in relation to field education placements, and con- cludes at exit from the course (Born & Carroll 1988; Moore & Urwin 1991).

The identification and definition of criteria for gatekeeping is also a controversial issue. There is general agreement that graduates should be knowl- edgeable and skilled in subjects relevant to social work practice, however, the inclusion of values and personal qualities as criteria is less widely accepted. Closely associated with this issue is the debate con- cerning the methods used to gatekeep. Some argue that screening should be confined to formal assess- ment in coursework units and field education prac- tica. Others support the use of the contentious, infor- mal process of ‘counselling out’ (the term commonly used in the United States of America) for non-acade- mic reasons such as ‘... not internalising the requisite values, attitudes and ethics for professional practice’

Australian SocIal Work September, 1997, Vol. 50, No. 3 5

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

01:

54 0

4 N

ovem

ber

2014

(Gibbs 1994a, p.4). This process involves persuad- ing the student to self select out and withdraw from the course.

In the United States of America, concern about the role of educators in gatekeeping has been reflected i n the quantity of writing and research on the subject (Constable 1977; Cunningham 1982; Born & Carroll 1988; Cobb & Jordan 1989; Cole 1991; Moore & Urwin 1991; Cole & Lewis 1993) and most recently, Gibbs (1994a and b). The find- ings of these writers include evidence that estab- lishing performance criteria which clearly define the more professional, non-academic aspects essential in social work (such as psychological well-being and ethical behaviour) is problematic (Cobb & Jordan 1989; Gibbs 1994). Fear of legal action contributed to the inability of educators to devise policies that address these more professional aspects of student suitability (Cobb &Jordan 1989; Cole 1991). (Similar points have been raised in Australia by Swain ( I 994)) However, to suggest that a student’s social work education should be terminated for non-academic reasons assumes that such termination is desirable and possible in an Australian context.

Studies in the United States found that criteria for entering the program and field placement tend to be weighted towards academic performance standards such as course completion and GPA (Grade Point Average), rather than characteristics which are more difficult to measure, such as sensi- tivity to diversity and ethical behaviour (Cunning- ham 1982; Gibbs 1994a). These studies suggest firstly that admission to a Bachelor of Social Work program is a fairly non-selective process, regard- less of the criteria used, and secondly, that very few students’ enrolments are ever terminated once they are admitted (Dineman 1981, 1982; Wahlberg & Loinmen 1990; Gibbs 1994a).

In Australia, meeting the challenge of gatekeep- ing is of major concern to those of us educating future practitioners both in educational institutions and in the field. Despite this, there appears to have been little research done to investigate the nature of gatekeeping processes in Australian Bachelor of Social Work programs. The existing Australian research on gatekeeping tends to focus on the vexed issue of the relative rarity of failure in field education (Kimber 1982; Hughes et al. 1994; Hey- cox & Hughes 1994). This echoes similar findings from the United Kingdom on this subject (Brandon 6r Davies 1979; Coulshed 1980).

Given the dearth of Australian research litera- ture on this subject, the present study sought to investigate the nature of gatekeeping processes in Australian Bachelor of Social Work programs through a survey questionnaire sent to Heads of Schools. Whilst there were questions about field

education, it also sought information about gate- keeping at admission, during the academic pro- gram and in field education as well as on the issue of counselling out for non-academic reasons.

METHODOLOGY In order to examine the gatekeeping process in

Bachelor of Social Work programs, a survey ques- tionnaire was developed, drawing extensively on that developed by Gibbs (1994a and b), with addi- tional questions devised by the authors. It was designed to yield data on screening criteria for admission to the course and entry into field educa- tion in these programs.

The questionnaire sought: 1) Rasic demographic information on the

school’s Bachelor of Social Work course, including the number of students and staff, the number of admissions, and the percentage of the last student intake without formal academic qualifications.

2) Information on a range of quality control issues, including the factors important to ensuring that Bachelor of Social Work graduates are compe- tent entry-level practitioners, formal (written) and informal criteria, methods used to assess these cri- teria, the likelihood of admission refusal and the most common reasons for such refusal, policy on the exclusion of students from the course, reasons

“It was designed to yield data on screening criteria f o r adinissioiz to the course and entry into field education iiz

these programs.”

field teachers reject students for placement, the frequency of student failure in placement and the availability of repeating the placement if the stu- dent was unsuccessful during the first attempt.

3) Information on the reasons why programs might pursue counselling out of a student and Heads of Schools’ attitudes towards counselling out for non-academic reasons (using Gibbs’ definition of ‘non-academic’ as covering areas other than cheat- ing, plagiarism and other academically relatcd mat- ters). Questionnaires were sent out in November 1994 and a single follow-up letter was sent to all schools in February 1995. The returns ensured the anonymity of the respondents except where they chose to identify themselves (which most did not do).

The sample was drawn only from those schools which had been granted at least provisional accred- itation for their course at the time by the Australian Association of Social Workers and were within at least one year of producing their first cohort of

6 Australian Social Work Septcmber, 1997, Vol. 50, No. 3

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

01:

54 0

4 N

ovem

ber

2014

graduates. Eighteen schools were sent question- naires and 1.5 subsequently returned a completed questionnaire (an 83% return rate).

The data was entered into and analysed using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) for Windows software package. Frequency tables were the main fomi of data display utilised.

FINDINGS There were a number of methodological issues

associated with the research study. The varied nature of courses and admissions programs makes it difficult to gain an entirely accurate picture of gatekeeping processes. For example some respon- dents had difficulty answering questions about their admissions program because different arrangements apply to different groups of appli- cants. This factor, together with the focus on infor- mal gatekeeping mechanisms, means that there is inevitably a subjective component to the responses.

The results will be outlined in three sections including:

I ) demographic information 2) quality control issues 3) counselling out for non-academic reasons.

1) Demographic information Structure of courses

Of the 15 Bachelor of Social Work programs, two (13%) were postgraduate courses, 11 (73%) undergraduate and two (13%) were both. Seven (47%) were reported as four year integrated courses; six (40%) were two-plus-two courses and two (13%) were both two-plus-two and one-plus- three courses. Therefore the data was evenly divided between four year integrated and two-plus- two courses.’

Most courses were relatively large with 86% having more than 100 students, with only 14% hav- ing less than this number. Two thirds (677%) of the

“The factor rated as most iiizportant was ‘acceptable pel.fonnaizce in social nlork

units ’ (both academic andfield education) with 93 % (11 = 14) rating

it as extremely inzyortant.”

schools had intakes of more than 51 students and 20 c / o had more than 100, so quite large numbers were selected for admission.

Nearly three quarters of those who answered the question were in programs which had less than 10 per cent of their intake with no fonnal academic

qualifications. Only in one case was it between 10 - 30 per cent. In most cases, therefore, 90 per cent of students in these schools had formal academic qualifications. (Three did not answer the question.)

Two thirds had less than 10 full time staff. Rela- tively few schools had 11 or more (n=5, 33%) and only two had over 21 staff. The median staff level was in the 6-10 range. (This figure may under esti- mate total staff numbers as part-timekasual staff were excluded.)

2) Quality Control Issues Factors that ensure Bachelor of Social Work graduates are competent entry level practitioners

Respondents were asked to rate the importance of various factors thought to ensure competent entrylevel graduates. The scale ranged from 1 (extremely importantj to 3 (not important), The fol- lowing table (Table 1) shows, in descending order, the mean responses and standard deviations for each item ie. the lower the mean figure for an item the more highly rated it was as important.

Table 1: Factors that ensure Bachelor of Social Work graduates are competent entry-level practitioners (N=15)

Scale Item Mean Acceptable perfonnance in

social work units 1.06 Good writing slulls 1.13 Ability to respect

& accept human diversity 1.13 Ability to relate well to others I . 13 Commitment to the helping role 1.13

1.13 Good verbal communication skills 1.20

Basic knowledge base in practice I .26 Basic knowledge base i n

socialhehavioural sci. 1.26 Behaviour consistent with

social work ethics 1.33 Personal values consistent with

social work values 1.33 Emotional maturity 1.33 Basic knowledge base in research 1.33 Basic knowledge base in policy 1.33 GPA scores at tertiary level I .60 Final year of school entry scores 2.20

Good i ti terperson al ski 1 Is

Emotional/niental maturity 1.20

S.D.

,258 ,352

.352 ,352 ,352 ,352 ,414 ,414 .45x

.458

.6 17

.6 17 ,488 ,488 ,488 SO7 ,775

The factor rated as most important was ‘accept- ble performance in social work units’ (both acade-

tnic and field education) with 93% (n=14) rating i t as extremely important. This was followed by five factors ranked equally (with a mean of 1.13) by more than 75 per cent of respondents. The first fac-

Australian Social Work September. 1997, Vol. 50, No. 3 I

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

01:

54 0

4 N

ovem

ber

2014

tor was academic (‘good writing skills’), and the remaining four were non-academic (‘ability to respect and accept human diversity’, ‘ability to relate well to others’, ‘commitment to the helping role’ and ‘good interpersonal skills’). These were closely followed by two more non-academic fac- tors (‘good verbal communication skills’ and ‘emo- tionavmental stability’) with 80% (n=12) rating them as extremely important.

The final year of school entry scores were least frequently rated as extremely important (20%, n=3) and most often rated as not important (40%, N=6) in ensuring entry-level competence. GPA scores at tertiary level was the next least frequently rated item (40% as extremely important and 60% as somewhat important). Overall, of the top 12 fac- tors, eight were personal quality/skills items and six of the top eight were in this category.

Fortnal criteria for entry into Bachelor of Social Work

The respondents were asked about the formal criteria they used for determining entry into the Bachelor of Social Work course. The questionnaire supplied a list of common criteria and respondents were asked to tick those used. The responses are in the following table.

Table 2: Formal Criteria for Admission into B.S.W.

~~

Criterion Potential / demonstrated

Commitment to and interest

Other Consistency between personal

values & social work values Communication skills Other relevant skills Personal qualities Emotionallmental stability

academic ability

in social work

~~

N %

11 73.3

9 60.0 8 53.3

5 33.3 4 26.7 4 26.7 4 26.7 1 6.7

PotentiaVdemonstrated academic ability emerged as the criterion most frequently cited (n=l I , 73%) followed by ‘commitment and interest in social work’ (n=9, 60%). Only 27 per cent cited skills and personal qualities (or less than four respondents) with ‘emotionaVmenta1 maturity’ least often cited (7% or n=l). Other factors mentioned included employment history, voluntary work, content of prior degree and English language speaking skills.

Informal criteria for admission Respondents were also asked about the informal

criteria they used with a list of factors supplied for them to check. The factors mentioned most fre- quently were: ‘consistency between personal val- ues & social work values’ (n=7, 47%); ‘commit- ment to and interest in social work’ (n=6,40%) and ‘communication skills’ (n=6, 40%). Physical health rated the lowest with only one school men- tioning i t (7%) (see Table 3). Other factors men- tioned included background diversity (aboriginal- ity, disability, NESB, single parenthood) and rele- vant past experience.

Table 3: Informal Criteria for Admission into B.S.W.

N % Consistency between personal

values & social work values 7 46.7 Commitment to and interest

in social work 6 40.0 Communication skills 6 40.0

Other relevant skills 4 26.7 Emotional/mental maturity 4 26.7 Other 3 20.0

1 6.7

Methods used in assessing criteria for admission to the Bachelor of Social Work

Respondents were asked about the methods used to assess the formal and informal criteria they used and again a list of factors was supplied for them to check (see Table 4). Virtually all (n=14, 93%) used formal academic records, followed by employ- ment record and voluntary work (n=10, 66%). Writ- ten essays and references came next (n=7, 47% each). Only four schools used interviews (27%).

Personal qualities 5 33.3

Table 4: Methods used in assessing criteria (for- mal and informal) for admission to B.S. W.

Method N % Formal academic records 14 93.3 Employment record 10 66.7 Voluntary work 10 66.7 Written essay 7 46.7 References 7 46.7

Interviews 4 26.7 Other 2 13.3

Literacy tests 5 33.3

Ranking of all criteria (formal and informal) for admission to Bachelor of Social Work programs

Respondents were given the opportunity to rank all the criteria (formal and informal) they utilised

8 Australian Social Work September, 1997, Vol. 50, No. 3

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

01:

54 0

4 N

ovem

ber

2014

and again a list of factors was supplied for them to check. The results (see Table 5) are consistent with the previous data in that academic ability is ranked higher than anything else (by 67%) with a range of personal qualities being ranked lowest (13%).

Table 5: Ranking of all criteria (formal and informal) for admission to B.S.W.

Most important criteria (ranked 1)No. %

Potential / demonstrated

Ranked 2 Commitment to &L interest

in social work 8 53 Ranked 3 Communication skills 4 27 Least important (ranked 6 or more) Personal qualities (7) 2 13 Emotional / mental stability (6) 2 13 Consistency between personal

& social work values 2 13

academic ability 10 67

Percentage of applicants denied admission to the course in the 1994 admissions cycle

Of those schools able to respond to this ques- tion (n=9), 63% of these (n=6) said that 50% or more of their applicants were denied admission and 13% denied admission to 75% or more of their applicants. The most common reasons for appli- cants to be refused entry to the course were related to academic achievement. No other category of rea- sons was listed. All fifteen schools allowed stu- dents to apply for admission more than once. Exclusion policy for the Bachelor of Social Work for academic curriculum and field education

In relation to the academic cumculum, there were 12 valid responses with 10 of these citing academic grounds (normal faculty rules that apply to all degrees) and two citing a mixture of academic and suitability grounds. Regarding field education, seven responses failed to address the question properly and so were regarded as invalid. Four of the five valid responses cited academic grounds (normal faculty rules which apply to all degrees) and one cited a mixture of academic and suitability grounds.

All fifteen schools required students to meet cer- tain criteria before being permitted to go into field education and all fifteen schools also allowed field educators to reject a student wanting a placement at their agency. The reasons given by respondents for field educators tending to reject a student are listed in the following table (Table 6). It was found that

field educators reject students on practical rather than suitability grounds.

Table 6: Reasons field educators tend to reject a student

Reason No. % More students than

agency can take 10 66 Placement will only accept

“more mature” students 10 66 Student’s suitability for that

field of practice is in question 9 60 Student’s mental health

Student’s suitability for career in social work in question 3 20

Other 3 20

is in question 3 20

Respondents were asked how often a student failure in field education had occurred in the last five years. Thirteen schools provided quantifiable annual data which when averaged out produced a figure of 15 field education failures per annum across all 13 schools. Only two schools have failed more than 15 students in five years. Sixty per cent of the schools have failed less than two per year.

Most schools (73%) gave a student who failed a field education placement an opportunity to repeat the placement and one offered students an opportu- nity to repeat the placement twice. Three respon- dents did not answer this question. When students repeat a placement, they are required to choose a new site in eight cases (53%), and only in one case are they required not to choose a new site. Six respondents indicated that this decision depended on a number of factors. Five of these six said that the field education coordinator or the departmental staff make such decisions, not the student. One replied that it was a matter of negotiation between all parties concerned.

3) COUNSELLING OUT FOR NON- ACADEMIC REASONS Policies for terminating students for non-acade- mic reasons

All respondents were given an opportunity to indicate if their institutions have policies in place for counselling out or terminating a student’s enrol- ment for non-academic reasons. Three choices were given including: ‘yes the Bachelor of Social Work course has such policies’, ‘no policies in place’ and ‘no we are not permitted to terminate for non-academic reasons’. Of the respondents who replied (n=14), 27% (n = 4) had formal written policies for terminating students’ enrolment for

Australian Social Work September, 1997, Vol. 50, NO. 3 9

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

01:

54 0

4 N

ovem

ber

2014

non-academic reasons and 73% (n = 10) had no policies in place. Of the 10 programs without poli- cies in place 70% (n = 7) believed that they were not permitted to terminate students’ enrolment for non-acadcmic reasons. Atlempts lo use a counselling out process

Respondents were asked if their departments had ever attempted to counsel out a student, if SO had it been successful and finally would they coun- sel out the same student again if the experience was repeated. Eighty percent (n=12) agreed that they had attempted to use the process, 74% (n= l l ) had used it successfully and 100% (n= l l ) agreed that they would repeat the process. D$ficulty with terrninating students ’ enrolment for non-academic reasons

Respondents were asked to indicate from a sup- plied list the factors that made it difficult to term- nate students’ enrolment in the course for non-aca- demic reasons. Two factors were clearly recognised as most important: the inability to ‘define lack of suitability for the profession’ and to ‘fonnulate concrete criteria for non-academic reasons’ were both identified by 53% (n=8) o f respondents. These were followed by ‘lack of institutional support via appeals’ and ‘poorly developed institutional poli- cies’. The factors recognised least frequently as making termination difficult were: ‘Bachelor of Social Work course policies are poorly developed’ (6.770, n=l), ‘institutional policies are poorly devel- oped’ (6.7%, n= l ) , ‘fear of legal action’ (6.7%, n = l ) and ‘lack of support from social work col- leagues’ (n=O). One person commented that fear of legal action was ‘a reality not a fear.’

Four respondents queried the whole notion of counselling out and argued that coursework units, particularly field education units should tackle any problems. This was expressed by one respondent

who wrote: ‘I believe that the challenge for social work education is to develop relevant assessment exercises, criteria and procedures, not to establish some right or process to ‘counsel out’.’ In some cases these four respondents did not answer any of the questions relating to counselling out or omitted a portion of them. Reasons for actively pursuing counselling out

Respondents were invited to rate on a 3-point Likert scale the non-academic reasons that result in their program actively pursuing counselling out of students. Table 7 shows percentages and valid per- centages of the factors rated most fi-equently. ‘Inability to respect human diversity’, (47%, 11=7), ‘non-conformity to social work values’ (40%, n=6), ‘personal values inconsistent with social work’ (33%, n=S) and ‘obvious emotionaVmenta1 problems’ (47%. n=7) were rated as highly likely to result in a decision to pursue counselling out. Reasons for terminating students’ enrolment for non-academic reasons if permitted

Respondents were asked to indicate the reasons that they would pursue termination of enrolment for non-academic reasons if permitted. Table 8 shows the percentage and valid percentage of the factors rated most frequently. The values and per- sonal qualities rated ‘highly likely’ were similar to those identified for counselling out. These included: ‘non-conformity to social work values’ (60%, n=9), ‘inability to respect human diversity’ (53%, n=8), ‘obvious emotional/mental problems’ (47%, n.=7) and ‘personal values inconsistent with social work’ (4070, n=6). ‘Lack of commitment to the helping role’ (40%, n=6) was also included in the most frequent group. Attitudes towards counselling out

A number of statements reflecting a variety of atti- tudes to counselling out students for non-academic

Table 7: Reasons to Pursue Counselling Out: Most Frequent Response by % (N=l l )

Scale Items rated as Highly Likely

% of Programs who Actively Counsel Out

Valid % of Programs who Actively Counsel Out

Emotional/mental problems Inability to respect human diversity Nonconformity to social work values Personal values inconsistent with social work

Scale Items rated as Not Likely

46.7 46.7 40

33.3

% of Programs who Actively Counsel Out

63.6 63.6 54.5 45.5

Valid % of Programs who Actively Counsel Out

Poor verbal skills Inability to relate well to others Poor writing skills

20 20 20

27.3 27.3 30

I I

10 Australian Social Work September, 1997, Vol. 50, No. 3

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

01:

54 0

4 N

ovem

ber

2014

Table 8: Reasons to Pursue Termination for Non-academic Reasons if Permitted, listed according to most frequent response by % ( N = l l ) .

Scale Items rated as Highly Likely

9% of Programs who would Terminate

Valid 5% of Programs who would Teiminate

if Permitted if Permitted

Nonconformity to social work values 60 81.8 Inability to respect human diversity 53.3 80 Emotionalhental problems 46.7 63.6 Personal values inconsistent with social work 40 54.5 Lack of commitment to the helping role 40 54.5

Scale Items rated as Valid % of Programs Not Likely who would Terminate who would Terminate

9% of Programs

if Permitted if Permitted

Personal values inconsistent with social work 26.7 36.4 Poor writing skills 26.7 36.4 Poor verbal skills 20 27.3

Table 9: Attitudes towards counselling out for non-academic reasons

Attitudes Our staff tend to worry about the potential harm a student who is not well suited to the profession might do to clients in the future. We tend to spend a good deal of time and energy in terminating a student for non-academic reasons. Students should only be terminated for non-academic reasons under the most extreme circumstances. Our staff generally avoid counselling out students who seem unsuited for a career in social work once the student is admitted. Terminating students from the course for non-academic reasons is a problem we tend to leave to our field educators. I t is a waste of time to devise policies to counsel out students for non-academic reasons when so few need it. It is not worth the time and energy it takes to try and tenninate a student from the course for non- academic reasons. 1 = Strongly Agree, 2 = Agree, 3 = Disagree, 4 = Strongly Disagree

DISCUSSION reasons were Dresented with a 4aoint Lzkert scale

M

1.462

2.000

2.462

3.007

3.143

3.167

3.417

SD

.5 19

I .225

3 7 7

,760

1.027

,835

,669

1 -

ranging from strongly agree (#1) to strongly disagree (#4). Table 9 shows in ascending order, the main mean responses of respondents’ attitudes about, and perceptions of, the counselling out process. Respon- dents tended to agree most strongly about the con- cern staff felt about potential harm to clients from students who are not well suited to the profession and about the large amount of time and energy that was spent on counselling out such students. They strongly disagreed that this time was wasted both in trying to develop policies or trying to counsel out.

In concluding, we would like to note briefly that the findings of the study point to a number of issues requiring ongoing debate and research. First, the high priority given to academic criteria at all stages of the gatekeeping process. This tends to contradict the acknowledgement made by Heads of Schools that social workers need to possess an amalgam of intellectual knowledge, practice skills, values and personal qualities. Second, the extent to which non-academic criteria should be applied in admissions and the ongoing assessment process,

Australian Social Work September, 1997, Vol. 50, No. 3 I I

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

01:

54 0

4 N

ovem

ber

2014

and the lack of fonnal policies on this issue. Lastly, the difficulty of defining an 'unsuitable' student and operationalising the relevant criteria in practice. These findings are discussed in more depth in a later paper (Ryan, Habibis & Craft in press) to be published in Australiun Social Work.

ENDNOTES 1, This paper was written prior to the implementation of the

AASWs CPE (Continuing Professional Education) requirements in 1997.

2. Social Work programs have a number of different structures: a four year integrated course is a four year program in which social work, social science and humanities units are integrated across the four years; a two plus two program has the first two years dedicated to social science and humanities while the social work units are covered within years three and four; a one plus three program has one year dedicated to humanities and social science and three years of social work units.

REFERENCES BORN, C. & CARROLL, D. (1988). 'Ethics in admissions: Journalof Social Work Education. Vol. 24. No.1. 00.79-85 BRANDON, i-& DAVIES, M. (1979), '%e Limits of Competence in Social Work: The Assessment of Marginal Students in Social Work Education: Brifish Journal of Social Work, Vol. 9, No 3, pp. 295-347. COBB, N. & JORDAN, C. (1 989), 'Students with questionabie values or threatening behaviour: Precedent and policy from discipline to dismissal,' Journal of Social Work Education, Vol. 25, No. 2, pp.87-97. COLE, B & LEWIS, R. (1993), 'Gatekeeping through termination of unsuitable social work students: Legal issues and guidelines,' Journal 01 Social WorkEducation, Vol. 29, No. 2, pp.150-159. CONSTABLE, R. (1977), 'A Study of admission policies in undergraduate education,' Journal of Education lor Social Work, Vol. 13, No. 3, pp.19-24. CUNNINGHAM, M. (1982), 'Admission variables and the prediction of success in an undergraduate fieldwork program.' Journal of Education

for Social Work, Vol. 18, No 2, pp.84-92. COULSHED, V. (1980). "Why is Placement Failure So Rare?' Austrahan Social Work, Vol. 33, No. 4, pp.17-21. DINERMAN, M. (1981), Social work curriculum at the baccalaureate and masters levels, The Lois and Samuel Liberman Fund, New York. DINERMAN, M. (1982), 'A study of baccalaureate and master's curricula in social work,' Journal of Education for Social Work, Vol. 18. No. 2, pp.84-92. GIBES. P. (1 994a), 'Screening Mechanisms in BSW Programs,' Journal of Social Work Education, Vol. 30, No.1, pp. 63-74. GIBES, P. (1 994b), 'Gatekeeping Issues in BSW Programs,' manuscript submitted to Arete. HEPLER, J. 8 NOBLE, J. (1990), 'Improving social work education: Taking responsibility at the door,' Social Work, 35, pp. 126-1 33. HUGHES, L., HEYCOX, K. & EISENBERG, M. (1994), 'Fear of Failing. Field Teachers and the assessment of marginal students in field education,' Advances in Social Wellare Education. pp 139.146. HEYCOX, K. & HUGHES, L (1994). 'AppealinglFailing: Student Placement Difficulties, Failure and Appeals in Australia and New Zealand Paper presented at the Australian Association of Social Work and Welfare Education Conference, Perth, Western Australia. September. KIMBER. S. (1982), 'Competence is Incompetence: Evaluation of a Social Work Student's Practice,' Conternporarv Social Work Education, Vol. 5, No. 2. pp. 93-104. MOORE, L. & URWIN. C. (1991), 'Gatekeeping: A model for screening baccalaureate students for field education,' Journal of Social Work Education, Vol. 27, No.1, pp.8-17. RYAN, M., HABIBIS, D. & CRAFT,C., (in press), 'Towards Better Gatekeeping: Discussion of the findings of a survey of gatekeeping mechanisms in Australian B.S.W. programs.' Australian Social Work. SWAIN, P. (1994). 'But what happens if.. ? Quasilegal considerations for social work student field placements,' Australian Social Work, Vo1.47,

WAHLBERG, J. & LOMMEN, C. (1990) 'An analysis of admission and termination criteria in BSW Programs,' Presentation at the 8th Annual Conference of the association of Baccalaureate Program Social Work Directors, Minneapolis, MN.

Arricle accepted for publication November 1996

NO. 2. pp.13-16.

25TH NATIONAL CONFERENCE AUSTRALIAN ASSOCIATION

OF SOCIAL WORKERS 21-24 SEPTEMBER 1997, CANBERRA

AASW SOCIAL WORK INFLUENCING OUTCOMES

with - individuals, groups and communities - social policy and political processes

- international social work, social development - poverty and inequality in society

For registration please contact the conference secretariat: Telephone (02) 6281 6624 Facsimile (02) 6285 1336

Web site: http://www.aasw.asn.au

12 Australian Social Work September, 1997, Vol. 50, No. 3

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

01:

54 0

4 N

ovem

ber

2014