Practice education in England: A national scoping review

Context

All social work students in England are required to spend 200 days (including up to 30 skills days) gaining different experiences and learning in practice settings. Fundamental to practice placements is the role of the ‘practice educator’ who teaches, supervises, supports and assesses a social work student on placement.

Practice educators play a crucial role in assuring that social workers entering the profession have the skills and knowledge to meet the professional standards. As the regulator charged with upholding public protection, we have an interest in assuring that all practice educators are suitably trained, supported, and competent within their roles.

Currently, we have no explicit relationship with practice educators beyond their social work registration, nor with the organisations providing practice educator training. At present, practice educators work to the practice educator professional standards (PEPS) held by the British Association of Social Workers (BASW).

Our summary of key findings

by Social Work England

The University of East Anglia, in partnership with Research in Practice, carried out the fieldwork for this research in summer 2023. The team recruited 127 qualified practice educators for the research, which comprised surveys, interviews and focus groups, including individual interviews with practice educators with protected characteristics.

There was also a literature review of the existing evidence base, a desktop analysis of placement handbooks across qualifying social work programmes, a survey of local authorities focusing on the number and demographics of practice educators in England, and focus group consultations with course providers and student placement providers.

The existing evidence base

A literature review of the existing evidence base relating to practice education found no clear national overview, as most research was localised, frequently small scale and often lacking in methodological rigour. From the existing evidence base, it was not possible to gain a sense of the number or demographics of practice educators in England, or a clear understanding of the knowledge, skills and values that practice educators require to be successful in their roles.

Almost half of the studies identified were more than 10 years old, pre-dating Social Work England’s role as the professional regulator for social work. Several studies addressed the introduction of the new social work degree in 2003 and the transition between National Occupational Standards and the Professional Capabilities Framework (PCF) in 2013. There is relatively little research exploring the impact of recent changes in social work education (such as the introduction of apprenticeships and fast-track qualifications) on practice educators, representing a significant gap in the evidence base.

However, the existing research does highlight some key themes, such as:

• the centrality of relationships to practice education
• the challenges of workload and the lack of support for practice educators
• the strong desire to support students and the emotional labour this generates
• how competing conceptions of social work play out in practice learning and assessment

The literature affirms the complexity of the practice educator role, particularly in terms of managing a network of relationships around the student to support their training and development.

Much of the research on working with students focused on failing students – meaning that the findings on practice educator’s experience skewed towards the negative, with research on the positives of working with students being underexplored. Supportive relationships and a strong sense of professional identify were found to help practice educators manage negative emotional responses and the emotional labour of practice education. There was a notable lack of research on the views of practice educators from minoritised groups, or the role of the practice educator in supporting students who have diverse and intersecting needs.

Perspectives of practice educators in England

Demographics of practice educators

The research aimed to capture a snapshot of the number and demographics of practice educators in England through a survey that was distributed to each local authority in England. It was found that 30% of the local authorities who responded keep no records, and only 55% of those who do keep records were able to provide any demographic information. The challenge in gaining information on the practice educator population was explored in discussion with employers, who explained that organisations often rely on informal arrangements for coordinating practice educators, with responsibility for this work often relying on a single member of staff.

Social Work England’s education and training standards require that course providers are able to evidence that the practice educators they work with are registered as social workers. However, we have noted through our own engagement with course providers that there can be confusion about whether responsibility for this lies with the course provider to keep a central record, or the placement provider. There is also the challenge that some practice educators are based in employment, whereas others work independently as self-employed or ‘independent practice educators’.

As practice educators are not registered with Social Work England, beyond their registration as social workers, there is no comprehensive data at a national level. Many practice educators raised the reliance on informal arrangements for coordinating practice educators and lack of central record keeping as a concern, which was a feeling shared by the majority of course and placement providers.

Becoming a practice educator

The research sought to understand why social workers become practice educators and identified 3 main types of motivation:

To support the next generation of social workers, to maximise personal impact on the profession and to act as a ‘gatekeeper’ in terms of maintaining standards

To develop and grow as a practitioner, to learn about themselves through facilitating the learning of others, and to progress professionally.

To address a personal, prior poor experience of practice education, or to address an issue or ‘right a wrong’ in the profession.

These reasons for becoming a practice educator also acted as a source of ongoing motivation, sustaining practice educators to remain in their role over the long-term. There was some debate among participants about making qualifying as a practice educator a requirement for career progression, feeling that making it compulsory could attract the wrong people. It was felt that career progression should not be the only motivator to becoming a practice educator.

Participants also reflected on the barriers they had faced on their journey to becoming a practice educator. Mostly these related to issues of workload, the time-consuming process of qualifying as a practice educator, and the availability of training in their area – with some areas reporting waiting lists for training opportunities.

The research found that the average length of time independent practice educators had worked as practice educators was double that of practice educators who were employed within organisations, suggesting that this group consists of more experienced practice educators.

Being a practice educator

Practice educators described their role as rewarding, complex and challenging. They felt that supporting students helped stop social workers from becoming stagnant in their roles, provided respite from frontline practice and gave social workers a way to emotionally re-engage in their work. For participants who had stepped away from frontline practice, working with students allowed them to ‘stay in touch’ with this work and maintain the currency of their practice.

Relationships with students were a source of satisfaction for practice educators, but the intensity of these relationships could be challenging. Practice educators felt a great deal of responsibility to nurture and support students, but to also constructively challenge and hold them accountable for their practice. This sense of responsibility was intensified when working with students who were at risk of not passing their placements. Support from employers, particularly the practice educator’s manager and team, was felt to be key when managing the emotional labour of working with students.

Practice educators described variable experiences in their relationships with course providers, with concerns raised that practice educators were sometimes not provided with the holistic support required to effectively address all of a student’s personal, practice and academic needs. Practice educators also reflected on the importance of placement matching and open information sharing about the student’s prior placement experiences, to ensure a good fit between student and practice educator. There was a consensus among practice educators that course providers should move towards standardisation of placement documentation.

Participants reported that since the COVID-19 pandemic most organisations used a hybrid model of work involving a mix of in-office and remote working. Practice educators described that this had added complexity when managing the expectations of students, employers and course providers – highlighting that hybrid working could stifle a student’s learning opportunities. In response to this, participants reported that many organisations had decided to limit working from home days for students.

There was a consensus among practice educators that they were increasingly working with students with complex needs, including mental health conditions and neurodivergent students. Practice educators identified a need for greater training on working with students with diverse learning needs, to ensure that they are equipped to provide the right support.

Overall, practice education helped social workers feel that they were making a meaningful and lasting contribution to the profession. It could also provide motivation to stay in the profession, as long as the social worker is effectively supported to develop in their role as a practice educator.

Perspectives of global majority practice educators

The research team used ‘global majority’ as a collective term to describe social workers from a non-white background. For many practice educators from a global majority background, their motivation to become a practice educator was rooted in wanting greater representation of global majority social workers within practice education – describing strong resonances and identification with students from similar backgrounds to themselves, desiring greater representation for social work students of colour, and striving to promote positive change within the profession.

Global majority practice educators [1] reported that they felt their organisations did not provide them with the same opportunities for training as their white British counterparts, reflecting that the lack of opportunities for progression was part of a wider pattern of underrepresentation in leadership roles. Some participants suggested that their experiences of racism in the workplace had led them to avoid putting themselves forward for additional opportunities, such as practice education. It was found that having a good manager could improve the additional challenges faced by practice educators from global majority backgrounds but would not resolve these completely.

There was a determination from global majority practice educators to provide students with better support than they themselves experienced when qualifying, and it was common for participants to find great satisfaction and enjoyment in their work with students. However, global majority practice educators identified the challenge of racism and unconscious bias towards them within the practice educator/student relationship, and the additional emotional labour of helping students unpick and reflect on their values and biases.

Practice educators from a global majority background shared that they did not always feel that concerns about racism were taken seriously by their employer or the student’s course provider, which could instil a reluctance to voice future concerns. Participants recommended that greater training on equality diversity and inclusion was needed on practice educator programmes and they raised that resources for engaging with global majority students were often outdated.

[note 1: The research team held 13 interviews with practice educators who identified as being from a global majority background.]

Perspectives of practice educators with a disability or neurodiversity

For many practice educators with a disability or neurodiversity [2], a key motivation was to ensure that students received the support that they themselves would have liked to receive – expressing a desire to improve the experiences of neurodivergent students and those with a disability, and to improve representation within the social work profession.

Experiences of organisational support were mixed, some participants described receiving effective support while others experienced a lack of support which had implications for their wellbeing and professional practice. In common with practice educators from a global majority background, neurodivergent and practice educators with a disability often attributed the provision of effective, individualised support to a specific individual – usually a good manager – rather than the organisation itself. This included the provision of reasonable adjustments for both the practice educator, but also for students, which participants reported could often be slow to implement.

Neurodivergent practice educators and practice educators with a disability described drawing on their own lived experience and expertise to help provide effective support for students, but also raised the need for better training on supporting students with neurodivergence or disabilities on practice educator qualifying programmes. They also reflected on the benefits of accessible placement paperwork and the importance of holistic support from course providers, to help the practice educator support the student, particularly if navigating unforeseen time off due to health issues.

[note 2: The research team held 16 interviews with practice educators who identified as neurodivergent or as having a disability.]

Perspectives of independent practice educators

Discussion with independent practice educators [3] found that they were often highly-experienced social workers and highly selective in the course providers they worked with, seeking effective support, opportunities for training and constructive feedback. Isolation from the student’s placement team and employer was a risk for independent practice educators, who are not able to draw on the support of colleagues or a manager, as they are not based within employment or the placement environment.

There were some differences in the challenges faced by on-site practice educators in comparison to independent practice educators. Independent practice educators often found it more difficult to access ongoing training and development and to stay up to date with new systems and technologies. Independent practice educators reflected that while they worked hard to maintain their currency and professional development, there was little external accountability for this beyond the continued professional development (CPD) requirements related to their registration as social workers.

For independent practice educators the issue of remuneration was more significant than for practice educators based in employment – and was strongly linked with their sense of the practice educator role being undervalued. Many participants were planning to retire from the role, reflecting that remuneration had not kept pace with the cost of living, and was becoming less financially viable.

[note 3: The research team spoke with 37 independent practice educators as part of a series of focus groups.]

Retaining practice educators

From discussion with practice educators the research identifies and summarises factors which can motivate a practice educator to leave or continue in their role.

Reasons to stay within practice education:

• Positive benefits of direct work with students and rewards of the role, including personal growth and a chance to directly shape the profession.
• Having a supportive manager.
• Having a supportive team, including sharing the experience of having a student within the team.
• Workload relief and protected time for student support, learning and paperwork.
• Support to process and manage the emotional labour of the role, especially when working with students who are at risk of failing their placements.
• Developmental feedback on the practice educator’s performance.
• Accessible opportunities for continuing professional development related to the practice educator role.
• Adequate remuneration
• Intuitive, manageable placement paperwork and assessment frameworks.
• Accessibility of wider networks for the support of practice education.
• Recognition of the practice educator role within their employing organisation.

Reasons to leave practice education:

• Having a difficult experience with a student placement, especially where this is the practice educator’s first experience of practice education.
• Practice educator’s team or manager are unwilling or unable to support a student within the team.
• Insufficient workload relief for practice educator or even an increase in caseload as a result of having a student.
• Lack of support with the emotional labour involved in the role, especially if a student is struggling or at risk of failing their placement.
• No opportunity for debrief from the course provider following a failed placement.
• Few opportunities for developmental feedback on the practice educator’s performance.
• Lack of opportunities for training and continuing professional development linked to practice education.
• Absent or insufficient remuneration.
• Complicated or time-consuming paperwork.
• Inconsistency of placement paperwork between course providers.
• Lack of recognition for the role, including lack of coordinated networks for the support of practice education.

Perspectives of course providers and employers in England

Models of practice based learning

The desktop review of placement handbooks identified similarities in how course providers are structuring practice based learning, with two placement opportunities across 200 days (inclusive of 30 skills days) found to be normal practice. This was the case for fast-track qualifying routes as well as for university-based routes, though fast-track placements are condensed over a shorter time period (approximately 14 months as opposed to 2 years). This suggests that changes to guidance on the provision of practice placements have been useful in ensuring a level of standardisation.

However, there was variance in the use of the 30 skills days and whether these were scheduled within the placement period or structured in other ways throughout the course. As an example, a fast-track provider used the 30 skills days to provide a contrasting learning experience that was different from the specialist setting of their first and final placements.

It was found that all respondents operated a pass/fail assessment for practice placements, though many course providers also link coursework to practice placement modules. There was a degree of consistency in how practice placements were assessed, with assessment against the PCF and Social Work England’s professional standards found to be common practice.

There was variability in the balance of responsibility for the final placement portfolio, with the majority of assessments being student-led. But a small number of providers placed more emphasis on the practice educator to gather and provide evidence of the student’s practice to support their assessment. Variability was also identified in the qualification and experience of practice educators.

Perspectives of course providers

Findings suggest that arrangements for practice learning and assessment can be highly dependent on local relationships between course providers and employers. There are complex power dynamics between students, practice educators, course providers and employers – with each partner feeling either marginalised or empowered depending on the situation and circumstance. For example, when failing a student, a practice educator may feel marginalised and lacking in authority in comparison to a course provider, whereas a course provider may feel that they have little influence over the placement opportunities or support that will be offered by an employer.

Focus group discussions with course providers highlighted the workload faced by practice educators in local authorities as a challenge to their recruitment and retention and highlighted the impact of practice educator numbers on placement sufficiency. There were concerns that the lack of workload relief for practice educators could result in students being perceived as ‘an extra pair of hands’ instead of their time on placement being protected and supported as a learning opportunity.

There was perceived variability in the quality of practice educators and placements, which made it difficult for course providers to ensure consistency for students. However, course providers affirmed the need for greater recognition of the practice educator role, and the value of practice education. Additional challenges were highlighted in the support of students from minoritised backgrounds, those with a disability or neurodiversity, and those at risk of not passing their placements.

In contrast with the views of practice educators, a majority of course providers were sceptical of the value of increased standardisation of practice placement assessments and paperwork.

Perspectives of employers and placement providers

Discussion with employers further identified that practice education is perceived as providing a pipeline for the recruitment of future social workers, with students bringing fresh knowledge and insight into teams. However, lack of resources within organisations coupled with limited workload relief for practice educators could limit an organisations’ capacity to provide placements, or to provide the support needed for students with additional needs.

Strengths, opportunities, weaknesses and threats

From the combined findings of the literature review, desktop review, survey, and consultation, the research team completed a strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threat (SWOT) analysis to provide a high-level picture of practice education in England:

• Strengths: There are effective local networks in place supporting the delivery of practice education, often underpinned by an experienced and motivated workforce.
• Weaknesses: The lack of national oversight and the localised nature of practice education systems creates significant variability in the provision of practice education and the support available to practice educators.
• Opportunities: There is appetite for change, including regulation, oversight, and standardisation to ensure greater consistency in the practice education system.
• Threats: The practice educator workforce risks precarity; there are several internal and external factors which pose risks to the retention of experienced practice educators.

Recommendations

The research team proposed six recommendations following consultation with practice educators:

• Registration and regulation: there was support for annotation of the practice educator role, in line with Approved Mental Health Professionals and Best Interests Assessors.
• Fair and consistent remuneration: practice educators welcomed the prospect of standardisation of payments to overcome existing inconsistency and perceived under-valuing of their work.
• Consistency of placement paperwork and student assessment: practice educators identified a need to simplify and standardise placement paperwork and frameworks for assessment.
• Changes to practice education qualification, training and CPD: practice educators expressed a desire for greater representation of diverse voices in practice educator training and for a wider range of specific training and career development.
• Progression opportunities: practice educators wanted clear, defined routes for career progression within the role including opportunities for ‘experienced’ status. Practice educators highlighted a need for more equitable routes into practice education, especially for global majority social workers who encountered barriers to becoming a practice educator.
• Workload relief and protected time: there was agreement that protected time and mandated workload relief are needed to sustain practice educators in their role.

There are several recommendations from this research which Social Work England, as the professional regulator for social work, is best placed to consider. These include the registration and regulation of the practice educator role, the future of the practice educator qualification, training and CPD, and issues of inconsistency concerning student placements and assessments. However, there are also recommendations beyond our direct control, such as the remuneration that practice educators receive for their work, or the workload relief offered by employers.

We are preparing to discuss the recommendations from this research with our Education and Training Advisory Forum, as well as sharing the findings with key stakeholders including the Department for Education and the Department of Health and Social Care.

What happens next?

As the specialist regulator for social workers in England it is important that we develop a closer relationship with practice educators. This research was a necessary step towards developing our approach to the regulation of practice education, and the findings have deepened our understanding of the perceptions of practice educators, course providers and placement providers.

We will continue to learn from the reapproval cycle and our ongoing inspections of qualifying social work courses in England. An analysis of our inspection findings will increase our understanding of where we may need to make changes to our existing education and training standards and guidance. This will further our assurance of practice education and our relationship with course providers.

We will also consider options for the regulation of practice educators informed by findings from this research, some of which may require changes to our rules, regulations or legislation. As always, we will work with the sector to ensure that any potential future regulation is proportionate, risk-based and in the public interest.