Some biting quotes from Barmak Nassirian, Vice President for Higher Education Policy, coming out of the Department of Education rulemaking negotiations that cut right to the heart of the issues:
"The Department specifies criteria for public members of accreditation boards, but not for the other members. It's a steel door on a rotten wooden frame."
"The Department has elaborate procedural requirements, yet nobody's reviewing the substance of what the accreditors do. Conforming to basic requirements is not enough, or else you could have an entity in 'full compliance' while the accreditor is just rubber stamping thieves."
Fighting hard for students so scammers can be stopped!
Tune in LIVE today for the final session of the first of three rounds of negotiations (link in comments).
Retired - plus P/T AMHP for Hampshire County Council, Independent Trainer
3moHaving read the education standards for AMHP Courses, I am not all impressed with SWE's coverage of anti-oppressive and anti-racist practice. All they can offer is a paragraph in each section of the standards about Equality, Diversity and Inclusion policies needing to be adhered to. This is woefully too thin and inadequate to ensure that AMHPs practice in an anti-racist style and mindful if the Protected Characteristics of the Equality Act 2010. There have already been stinging criticisms made by many social workers and social work academics about SWE's own policies and practices which have appeared to treat racialised minority social workers worse than those who are White British regarding Fitness to Practice procedures. With the Mental Health Act Review in 2018 trying to address discrimination against racialised minorities in the MH System, and the DHSC and NHS England developing vital services to correct the discrimination, SWE once again seem to demonstrate how far away they are from what is needed. I am dismayed.