Kebadiretse v General Social Care Council  [2005] EWCST 483(SW) (24 August 2005)

Pearl Seipone Kebadiretse

-v-

General Social Care Council
[2005] 0483.SW

-Before-

Mr. Simon Oliver (Chairman)
Ms Marilyn Adolphe
Ms Christa Wiggin

Sitting at 18 Pocock Street, London on 8th August 2005

Decision

Application

1.	Ms Kebadiretse (‘the Applicant’) appeals under Section 68 of the Care Standards Act 2000 against the decision of the Registration Committee of the General Social Care Council (‘GSCC’) dated 18th March 2005 not to register her as a social worker.

Appearances

2.	Ms Grey of counsel appeared on behalf of the General Social Care Council and called as witnesses Mr. Skidmore and Ms Clarke. Ms. Kebadiretse represented herself and called no witnesses.

Background

3.	Part 4 of the Care Standards Act 2000 creates the General Social Care Council and provides for the registration and training of social workers.  Social workers who have not studied on a GSCC approved course in this country may still apply for registration if they fulfil the criteria set out in Section 64(i).

4.	Section 64(i)(a) concerns nationals of any EEA  state and Section 64(i)(b) concerns applicants who have undertaken relevant social work training elsewhere than in England.  Section 64(i)(b) applies to Ms Kebadiretse.

5.	Ms Kebadiretse is a Botswanan national and has a Bachelor degree in social work awarded to her by the University of Botswana on 11th October 2003.  Since 1st April 2004, Ms Kebadiretse has worked (through Blue Care Recruitment) as a social worker with Wigan Metropolitan Borough Council in their Children’s Social Care Assessment Service.

6.	In October 2004, Ms Kebadiretse applied to the GSCC for registration.  Since 18th July 2005 the process of registration is governed by the General Social Care Council (Registration) Rules 2005, issued under Part 4 of the Care Standards Act 2000.  The Rules set out in detail what information is required for registration and establishes a Registration Committee which considers all applications where there is a proposed recommendation to refuse registration. Prior to the 18th July 2005 the process was governed by the 2003 Rules which, for the purposes of this process, were identical. Ms Kebadiretse’s application for registration was considered by the committee on 16th March 2005.

7.	As Ms Kebadiretse is Botswanan and has not obtained a Diploma in Social Work awarded by an English academic institution, she was required to complete an additional application form (known as Part II) to show that her professional qualification meets the requirements of the Diploma in Social Work as well as provide additional evidence of training completed since she obtained the qualification overseas, assessed periods of practice and relevant work experience completed both within and outside the U.K.

8.	Part II of the application form is processed by the International Recognition Service (‘IRS’) which appoints an independent assessor to make a recommendation on the information provided.

9.	One of the key parts of the IRS work is to ascertain the comparable level at which an overseas qualification is recognised in the U.K.  This standardisation work is undertaken by the National Recognition Information Centre for the United Kingdom            (‘UK NARIC’) an organisation established by but independent of the Department for Educational and Skills.  Ms Kebadiretse’s Bachelor degree from the University of Botswana is considered comparable with a Certificate of Higher Education or the first year of a U.K. Bachelor degree.  Put simply, this means that Ms Kebadiretse’s academic qualifications do not equal the U.K.’s Diploma in Social Work (‘DipSw’).

10.	Ms Kebadiretse’s Part II form was sent by IRS to Mr. Gibson, an IRS assessor, on 7th December 2004.  His assessment was that “the applicant has not immediately demonstrated that they have met the requirements of the DipSW and additional training is required.”  In Mr. Gibson’s reasons, he states that “had the qualification been at an appropriate academic level, this application would have been successful.”  He recommended a period of one year full-time additional training.

11.	Because Mr. Gibson’s recommendation was negative, Ms Kebadiretse’s application was sent to Ms Clarke for a second opinion.  Although she agreed with Mr. Gibson’s recommendation as to registration, she felt that one year of full-time study was too stringent.  She reduced the period of additional training required to eighty days in a supervised practice setting.  In her recommendation, she specified, in particular, that the applicant should give “consideration to, and demonstrate evidence of, the ability to apply legal aid policy frameworks, reflect critically on practice and apply (understanding of) social work values.”  Ms Clarke thought that part of the process could include taught input.

12.	Because of the IRS recommendation, the GSCC Registration Committee refused registration.  Ms Kebadiretse appealed against this decision to this Tribunal on 7th April 2005.  Ms Kebadiretse’s appeal is on two bases: first, that the GSCC has not taken into consideration her period of work experience working as a social worker in the UK and, secondly, because she believes that the decision on the equivalency of her University of Botswana Bachelor degree is based on false information.

13.	During the hearing, it became clear that the recognition of a degree from an overseas institution has two elements.  First is the verification process and second is the comparability process through UK NARIC.  The process of verification is simply a letter confirming that a degree obtained outside the U.K. is a professional qualification in social work in its country of origin.  The first time such a letter was issued in 2000 was not a reference to the date upon which the University of Botswana first awarded its Bachelor of Social Work degree but a reference to the first time a letter of verification was issued.  Having had this clarified, Ms Kebadiretse accepted that this was no longer a ground of appeal.

14.	In addition to the evidence contained in his statement, Mr. Skidmore explained to the Tribunal how NARIC operated and that it was independent of the GSCC and the Department for Education and Skills.  He also said that NARIC had identified that a University of Botswana social work degree is at the same level as either a Certificate of Higher Education or the first year of a degree course.

15.	Mr. Skidmore also explained how he was unclear whether the two courses Ms Kebadiretse was intending to embark on (the PQ 1 and the MA) would meet the requirements of Ms Clarke’s recommendations without knowing more about what the courses comprised.  Mr. Skidmore also confirmed that if Ms Kebadiretse was to make up the identified shortfall, she would need to put together a programme and submit it to the GSCC to ensure it met their requirements and to ensure that, amongst other matters, the proposed supervisor was an appropriate person and fully understood what was the GSCC requirement for the eighty days.  He also said that if the programme was approved by GSCC and Ms Kebadiretse was able to show that the eighty days had been completed within two years and signed off as satisfactory by the supervisor, Ms Kebadiretse’s application for registration would be processed without a further application needing to be made, or fee paid.

16.	Ms Clarke amplified the evidence contained in her written statement.  She explained that she was one of two individuals who give second opinions on IRS assessments.  She also explained that she felt insufficient weight had been given to Ms Kebadiretse’s work-based experience in the U.K.  She felt that the shortfall in academic standards could be met appropriately by eighty days of supervised practice placement and taught input.  Ms Clarke believed that GSCC had taken considerable notice of Ms Kebadiretse’s field practice experience and that she regarded it as being very significant in being able to reduce the length of training required from one year to eighty days.

17.	Ms Kebadiretse explained to us that she had a comprehensive supervision programme in place in Wigan and that she was a Level 1 Social Worker (being at the newly-qualified level) and that she was involved in doing S 17 and S 47 Children Act 1989 assessments.  She also explained to us that she had undertaken some training.  Her main point, however, was that she felt that, because of her degree from Botswana, she had covered the aspects that she needed to cover – for example, she showed us that in the first year of her degree course she took a law and social work module.  She felt that to have to do a further eighty days of supervised training would be duplicating what she had already done.

Tribunal’s conclusions, with reasons

18.	We are satisfied that the question of validation is no longer an issue.  We are also satisfied that, given the NARIC report, the University of Botswana Social Work degree is not equivalent to the British DipSW.  NARIC is an independent body and Ms Kebadiretse does not suggest that they have wrongly assessed the Botswana degree.  We, like Ms Kebadiretse and GSCC are bound by NARIC’s certification.

19.	Having heard Ms Clarke’s evidence, we are satisfied that GSCC has taken into consideration Ms Kebadiretse’s practical field experience.  Indeed, in reducing the further requirement from one year to eighty days, we have come to the conclusion that the Council has been more than fair in taking into consideration the work Ms Kebadiretse has undertaken in Wigan since April 2004.

20.	We note that Ms Kebadiretse said that she was a Level 1 social worker and that she had done S 17 and S 47 Children Act 1989 assessments.  However, it was clear to us, in answer to questions about the legislative and policy context, that even though Ms Kebadiretse had studied the legal framework in Botswana, she was not up to date with present English social work practice.  For example, Ms Kebadiretse did not mention in her written application to GSCC or in evidence before the Tribunal, that she was familiar with such initiatives as The Children Act 2004, ‘Every Child Matters’ guidance, the Common Assessment Framework or Integrated Children’s Service.  The lack of this suggests to us that Ms Clarke is right in her recommendations that Ms Kebadiretse needs to be taught and understand the current theoretical, legislative and policy framework in which social workers in Children’s Services now operate.

21.	Given the NARIC report as to the level of the Botswanan Social Work degree and the obvious gaps in the field work presented by Ms Kebadiretse, we are satisfied that the decision to refuse registration was entirely appropriate in the circumstances and so we dismiss this appeal.

22.	We considered at length whether the reduction in the requirement from one year to eighty days was appropriate or not.  However, we were reassured that the GSCC would be thorough in its approach to ensure a proper content for the programme, an appropriate supervisor and rigorous supervision.  We note that Ms Kebadiretse wishes to practise as a qualified social worker in children and family services.  Given the high profile and technicality now given to safeguarding child protection, we believe that it is not only for the safety of children but also for Ms Kebadiretse that she is not open to challenge in the work she undertakes.  We believe that a detailed understanding of the theoretical, legislative and policy context is of vital importance and should, if possible, be part of a taught module, rather than undertaken in a supervised setting.  We are also concerned that, given the depth of knowledge that is required, eighty days may not be sufficient time to complete the additional work.  We are reassured, therefore, that Ms Clarke regards eighty days as the absolute minimum required.

23.	Whilst we appreciate that Ms Kebadiretse is keen to advance her learning by taking the PQ 1 and enrolling for a Masters degree, we feel that, whilst it is unclear whether or not these can form part of the GSCC requirements, they should be put to one side until the specific requirements set out by the GSCC have been met.

24.	We were somewhat concerned that the recorded supervision notes that Ms Kebadiretse produced as part of her evidence to GSCC were of a poor quality in that they seemed to record very little of what was done.  Since the GSCC will require detailed clear and convincing evidence of rigorous supervision, it may be that Wigan MBC need to review their supervision record practice.  From the notes that have been provided, we were able to see clearly that Ms Kebadiretse did not have the policy and legal background the GSCC required.

25.	Given the importance to Ms Kebadiretse of completing the eighty day additional work, we hope that she now appreciates that, whatever she might think about duplication, the legal framework she was taught in Botswana is no longer applicable because social work practice has moved on considerably in England in the last few years, especially in the area of Children and Family practice.  The GSCC requirement is the minimum possible that could have been sought and Ms Kebadiretse should be pleased that Ms Clarke reduced the requirement from one year to only eighty days.  Further, the requirement is for her own protection if she was to be challenged in her work, as much as it is for those with whom she wishes to work.

Accordingly;
We dismiss this appeal.   

The decision is unanimous.

Mr Simon Oliver (Chairman)
Ms Marilyn Adolphe
Ms Christa Wiggin

Date: 24 August 2005