Education and training for the integrated
children’s workforce:
Implications for HE
Hilary Burgess (SWAP)
Julie Anderson (ESCalate)
Helen Bulpitt (HS&P)
Plan for workshop
• Introduction.
• ICS-HE Project.
Knowledge Review,
Conference and network,
• First small work groups (Fdn; U.grad; P.grad).
• Second small work groups (Making change happen).
• Feedback and action points.
ICS-HE Project Overview
• Integrated Children’s Services in Higher Education
• One of 6 ‘Employer Engagement’ Projects selected
by the HEA with funding from HEFCE for SCs to link
with SSCs.
• Funding agreed Dec 2006; project ran May 2007-May
Intended Project Outcomes
• Raising awareness of the evolving agenda in
children’s services for HE staff working across the
disciplines and professions,
• Identifying examples of emergent practice for
integrated provision in HE,
• Identifying barriers to change & ways to overcome
• Promoting collaboration between disciplines,
• Contributing to knowledge generation about IPE in this
• Promoting dialogue between HE and Sector Skills
• HEA Subject Centres for:
Education (ESCalate),
Medicine, Dentistry and Veterinary Medicine (MEDEV),
Health Sciences and Practice (HS&P),
Social Policy and Social Work (SWAP),
• Children’s Workforce Development Council (CWDC).
• Children's Workforce Network (CWN).
Relevant disciplines and professions
Early Years,
Social Work,
Other allied health
Youth and Community,
Policy context
Laming Inquiry (2003) into death of Victoria Climbie,
Every Child Matters (2003),
The Children Act (2004),
Children’s Trusts,
The Children’s Plan (DCSF 2007: 17),
National Service Framework for for Children, Young
People and Maternity Services (2004+2006),
• Youth Matters (2006).
Stakeholder Reference Group,
Knowledge Review,
National Conference,
Links to the IQF,
Stakeholder Reference Group
• Partners,
• Regulatory Bodies (e.g. the Training Development
Agency, General Teaching Council, the General
Social Care Council),
• Higher Education representative bodies (e.g. JUCSWEC & UCET Universities Council for the
Education of Teachers),
• Employer organisations.
Knowledge Review
Prof Imogen Taylor, University of Sussex:
Research question: What is known about the nature,
contexts and participants in IPE in Higher Education
Institutions (HEI’s) in England that brings together
students from two or more disciplines to contribute to
the development of collaborative practice with
children, young people and their families?
» Research review.
» Practice Survey.
» Policy map.
A common understanding of terms
Interprofessional education: ‘Occasions when two or
more professions learn with, from and about each
other to improve collaboration and the quality of care’
(Freeth et al. 2005, p. 112).
Integrated services: ‘A set of processes and actions by
which partners ensure outcome-focused front-line
delivery. It means a holistic approach within which
needs can be identified and priorities – national and
local - can be addressed’ (DfES 2005, p. 11).
Research Review Methodology
• Leads from each HEA Subject Centre asked to identify up
to 3 key journals in their own discipline (or involving their
own discipline with others) considered to be the most
likely outlets for publication of papers about the
involvement of HE in Integrated Children’s Services.
• Where the recommended journals turned out to yield few
or no relevant articles, or could not be accessed, Subject
Centre leads were asked to nominate further journals,
which were also scrutinised.
• Identified journals from some disciplines yielded far less
relevant material than others.
Research Review Key Findings
• Learning for integrated children’s services is
inadequately conceptualised and theorised;
• Variable findings - researchers agree about the
logistical challenges of developing interprofessional
learning for integrated children’s services;
• Dearth of robust evidence about outcomes for
students; outcomes for children, young people and
families are rarely discussed.
Practice Survey in HEIs
Scoping study of HE Practice re ICS: on-line and
telephone survey (Sept-Dec 2007) of 36
universities (43 interviewees) in England plus one
each in Wales and NI.
There is a wealth of innovative initiatives at all levels,
and primarily at foundation and undergraduate
levels, in full programmes, individual modules,
practice and work-based learning.
Typology of approaches to IPE for ICS-HE
6: Four types of integrated children’s services
provision in HEIs
1. Interprofessional students and interprofessional staff.
2. Uniprofessional students and interprofessional staff.
3. Uniprofessional students and uniprofessional staff
teaching interprofessional issues.
4. Generic non-professional programmes and
interprofessional staff.
Network Co-ordination and conference
Prof Judy McKimm, University of Beds:
Commissioned to identify and engage HE bodies,
develop networks and plan and coordinate the
national conference and dissemination.
National conference, Manchester Nov 2007.
The Integrated Qualifications Framework
“A set of approved qualifications that allows
progression, continuing professional
development and mobility across the children
and young people's workforce”.
IQF qualifications will be underpinned by the Common Core of
Skills and Knowledge for the Children’s Workforce and link to
the new Qualifications and Credit Framework (QCF), being
developed by the Qualification and Curriculum Authority (QCA).
IQF inclusion principles were developed with stakeholders.
Consultation with HEIs has taken place from autumn 07 to
Spring 08.
Enabling factors for ICS-HE
Enthusiastic students.
Entrepreneurial interest, individual commitment.
Senior HEI leadership.
Strategic cross-faculty appointments.
External partnerships with stakeholders.
Seed funding (e.g. by HEIs or stakeholders).
Seminar programme to promote and disseminate.
Linked to research.
7 HEI’s ‘whole system change’ most or all of the
above; most opt for incremental change.
Barriers to ICS-HE
• Equivocal research findings from existing IPE &
mixed views about ‘transferability’
• Variable interpretations by HEI’s of ‘integrated
children’s services’ and implications for HE.
• Disciplinary ‘silos.’
• Departmental administrative boundaries.
• Lack of suitable space for large groups.
• Lack of development time and funding.
• Need sustained stakeholder support (business case).
• Lack of synergy between accrediting bodies.
• Fast changing, complex policy context and
fragmented practice context.
Recommendations (1)
• Government should involve HE as strategic partners
in researching, developing and implementing policy &
practice for the ICS workforce, nationally & regionally;
• Universities should strengthen their links with SSCs
and employers and appoint ICS coordinators;
• Regulatory bodies should explore collaboration,
building on initiatives like the Joint Statement of
interprofessional values underpinning work with
children and young people (GTC, GSCC, NMC);
Recommendations (2)
• Professional bodies should commission initiatives;
• Employers, supported by government should
collaborate with universities to develop programmes
with a sustainable and robust business case;
• Children, young people and families should be
supported to contribute to learning, teaching and
Recommendations (3)
• Research funders should target funding to ensure a
robust evidence-base and to develop the conceptual
and theoretical base essential to learning for ICS;
• The Higher Education Academy and Subject
Centres should extend the dissemination of the ICSHE project across disciplines and stakeholder
groups, and support educators through information
exchanges and briefings.
First small work group: levels
Select a working group to focus on one of the following:
• Foundation degrees;
• Undergraduate degree modules and/or programmes;
• Postgraduate degree modules and/or programmes.
What opportunities are there for development?
What barriers might there be & how might these be
What examples exist that can be built on?
Second small work group:making change
Select a working group to focus on one of the following:
• ‘Whole system’ cross-HEI change;
• Developing links with stakeholders regionally;
• Developing links with stakeholders nationally.
What opportunities are there for development?
What barriers might there be & how might these be
What examples exist that can be built on?
• Feedback from small groups.
• Action points.
FFI go to <>

similar documents