Social Work Education Continuum Committee

            This very active, energized committee continues to be engaged in thinking, research, and action on issues related to the continuum in social work education. The second mailing of the committee’s survey of BSW grads in MSW advanced standing programs was completed in spring, 2006. Considerable effort to obtain responses resulted in a final count of 436 responses from 52 MSW programs compared with 248 responses from 34 programs after the first mailing. Data are now being analyzed and we hope to be able to offer a session at the CSWE APM in 2007. Preliminary reports, however, suggest that redundancy and duplication of content remain major concerns. Advanced standing appears to be highly valued by BSW graduates.

            Multiple issues continue to surface regarding the implementation of advanced standing. We have just learned that in the Western Region, for example, students who have been supervised by a BSW have not been accepted into advanced standing. Other field-related issues apparently also exist. The committee is now considering research to identify the variations of difficulties that BSW programs in different parts of the country are encountering.

            EPAS revision and its impact on the quality of BSW and MSW education have been of keen interest to the committee. For many months the committee labored to develop a definition of generalist practice for baccalaureate social work education that could be forwarded to CSWE for use by the commission that is undertaking revision of the Educational Policy Statement. The BPD Board recently made some additional changes to the definition and it has been sent to CSWE.

            A highlight of the BPD 2006 conference for the committee was the extraordinarily well attended session sponsored by the committee entitled Searching for Transparency: EPAS Revision and the Potential Effect on the BSW. The responsiveness of the audience reflected many concerns about the direction taken by COCEI to make major changes in the foundation curriculum. Much greater openness of communication about the EPAS revision process was requested. Concern was voiced about EPAS revisions moving ahead rapidly during 2007, a year when BPD was not going to hold a conference. By spring, 2008 when BPD meets again, work on EPAS revision will be nearing conclusion thus offering very little opportunity for further impact on this document that we will live with another 7 or 8 years in the future. Clearly the BPD community will be challenged to create other channels for discussion, thoughtful consideration, and other means to have impact on the process.

Mary Ann Suppes, Chair