40
Social work education in England 2008-09 Regulating the delivery of Practice Learning Opportunities
last reporting year. Only 165 (1.2%) of placements encountered delays in finishing on time. A slightly higher number (175) failed to present to the relevant target examination board, the difference between the two figures (10) is likely to be due to students missing the examination board for issues that arose after the end of the placement. The number of students failing to present to the relevant target examination board reduced considerably from the previous year (807 or 7%), even though the student population increased during this period. The GSCC does become aware of individual students who prove difficult to place and who endure considerable delays. However, these constitute a small minority and there is often a specific history and set of circumstances attached to the situation. There were 176 extended or repeat placements (1.9% of the total) where the student involved was required to demonstrate further their capabilities before passing. Of the 238 students removed from their courses for academic failure or of the 25 students removed following misconduct procedures, 8 were for practice learning capability or practice placement related suitability reasons. Our data indicates that the vast majority of students do obtain a placement and complete it on time. In all aspects there seems to have been a slight improvement since the previous reporting year. It is possible to conclude from the data that HEIs have overall become better at setting up and managing the sufficient placements in what has become a very difficult and challenging climate.
Monitoring practice learning – quality Our data indicates that for the reporting year in question, although there were some regional
exceptions, the demand for placements was met. Ninety five per cent of HEIs reported that they had systematically audited placement opportunities and in total had rejected as unsuitable only 39 placements out of over 13,000. However, thirteen HEIs reported that they had been compelled to use placements that they would have preferred not to, amounting to a total of 41 such placements. Presumably these would have been placements that met baseline requirements and were, therefore, acceptable but were not perceived to be fully meeting individual student needs. The vast majority of HEIs (97%) reported that they adhered to the QAA code of practice for work-based assessment. All HEIs reported that they had systems in place to receive feedback about the placement experience. Mostly these systems were based on expected receipt of student (94%) and practice educator (92%) critical commentary. In approximately half of cases tutors also provide feedback. Actual feedback return rates were reported as reasonably high for students (71%) and less so for practice educators (58%). Placement feedback is typically examined by the HEI placement coordinator and, where they have them, a practice assessment panel. Over 70% of HEIs said that their external examiners also commented on practice learning provision. The conclusion from this is that only 112 (0.8%) HEIs used placements that were adjudged not to have met the HEIs own quality assurance standards (last year’s report noted 0.7%) and almost half of all HEIs reported that they would not be using at least one of those placements again. It is worth emphasising that this means that 99.2% of placements were meeting the HEIs own quality assurance standards.