From the Editor—Accreditation, Competency-Based Education, and EPAS Revisions

As most social work educators are aware, revisions to the Council on Social Work Education’s (CSWE) Educational Policy Accreditation Standards (EPAS) are currently in progress and slated to be finalized in June 2015. Program accreditation plays a very significant role in our profession for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is that social work licensing in most states requires graduation from a program-accredited CSWE (Thyer, 2009). Accreditation also ensures that social work programs meet national standards, which, ostensibly, confirms that a program delivers quality education (Watkins, 2009) and enhances legitimacy and the professional status of social work practice.

Following its establishment in 1951, CSWE assumed responsibility for accrediting social work programs (CSWE, 1952), and, soon after, the Council released a study containing recommendations for social work education, a 13-volume document titled Social Work Curriculum Study (Boehm, 1959; Gelman, 2014). These recommendations became the guidelines for future curriculum content that would be used for accreditation of master’s-level social work programs, replacing an earlier 1932 curriculum policy adopted by the then-defunct American Association of Schools of Social Work (Baskind, 2000; Gelman, 2014). Although baccalaureate social work programs were not recognized as being a professional degree by the National Association of Social Workers (NASW) until 1968, the aforementioned Curriculum Study examined undergraduate social work education and proffered recommendations about the differentiation and relationship between graduate and undergraduate study (Gibbs, 1995). Beginning in 1961, CSWE developed an initial guide for the development of bachelor of social work (BSW) programs in social welfare, and, after several revisions, the criteria for accrediting BSW programs was implemented in 1974 (CSWE, 1961, 1974; Gibbs, 1995; Sheafor & Shank, 1986). Currently, within CSWE the two principal bodies involved in setting policies for curriculum and standards for accreditation are the Commission on Educational Policy (COEP) and the Commission on Accreditation (COA). A fuller description of their responsibilities and coordination are detailed on the CSWE website.

In line with these responsibilities, curriculum policy guidelines for both bachelor’s and master’s programs have been revised on a regular basis (originally every 10 years and currently every 7 years). Although there has been some debate about the degree and extent of these changes, the most significant revision occurred in 2008 with a move to competency-based education (CBE) required for accreditation (CSWE, 2008). Programs were now expected to define measurable practice skills linked to a set of mandated competencies and also devise multiple measures to evaluate competency attainment. Although there had been earlier discussions of CBE in the social work literature (Arkava & Brennen, 1976; Larsen & Hepworth, 1978; Shepard & Wahle, 1981), for most faculty and administrators this presented a new paradigm as well as a potentially major challenge in how to approach the curriculum. Although CSWE presented a series of papers and guidelines to assist programs in preparing the necessary accreditation self-study document, there was little, if any, discussion about the history, nature, philosophy, and ongoing issues related to CBE.

An examination of the history of CBE demonstrates how it has evolved since its inception. Although the precursors to CBE originated in the 1920s (American Psychological Association [APA], 2006), CBE began to gain prominence in American education only in the late 1960s, based on concerns that schools were not preparing students with necessary life skills (Malan, 2000). One of the key features of CBE included a flexible timeframe for students to master these skills. This required instruction to be self-paced, learner-centered, and sufficiently flexible so that students could retake assessments until they demonstrated competence. This philosophy had its roots in educational policy changes in the early 20th century that saw an increasing number of high school graduates applying for college admission. To ensure that students were prepared for college, the National Education Association recommended the implementation of standard time units that were easy to measure and equated successful preparation with the actual time spent on a subject (Laitinen, 2012). Ironically, when this was implemented years later, it was totally unrelated to concerns about educational preparedness. The impetus came from Andrew Carnegie, who was concerned that college professors were poorly compensated for their workloads and lacked adequate funds or pensions for retirement. Subsequently, time-based units (currently referred to in most institutions as credit hours) became the standard for determining eligibility not only for pensions but for academic achievement in high schools and colleges as well (Laitinen, 2012). Thus the number of credit hours, rather than preparedness, ultimately became the requirement for high school and college graduation, although there is scant evidence of a relationship between time and learning.

With the implementation of CBE in professional education, particularly in the fields of medicine, nursing, psychology, and education, the definitions of CBE have changed over time. In a systematic review of the varying definitions found in medical education, Frank et al. (2010) noted that there is no clear or widely accepted definition of CBE in the health professions other than its emphasis on outcomes rather than process. The results of their systematic review led the authors to propose a definition of CBE that is consistent with its original intent, including the de-emphasis on time-based training, a shift to student-centered learning, and the need for greater flexibility. However, given the current political climate and the rigid credit hour–based structure of our colleges and universities, there remain three significant barriers to the implementation of CBE. These include conflicting educational policies, faculty resistance, and the complexity of implementation (Hill, 2013). All three of these obstacles can be seen in our attempt to implement and refine CBE in social work education.

Not surprisingly, over the years each revision of curriculum policy and accreditation standards has engendered various degrees of controversy. Despite our self-proclaimed professional role as change agents, mandates involving curricular change are rarely embraced with open arms or open minds. There have been numerous, and sometimes heated, debates in the literature about a variety of issues related to accreditation. These have included concerns about the accreditation process being outdated and unable to keep pace with contemporary changes in the profession, a perceived lack of rigor, standards that impede innovation and fail to ensure effectiveness, overly prescriptive accreditation standards, the ongoing failure to develop our own knowledge base, an overreliance on theories and methods from other disciplines, unreasonable challenges associated with the curriculum mandates, a lack of emphasis on preparing students for doctoral study, unreasonable barriers to interdisciplinary education, and an uncritical adoption of evidence-based practice, among others (e.g., Cournoyer & Adamek, 2001; Gil de Gibaja & McCroskey, 1999; Green & Baskind, 2000; Markward & Drolen, 1999; Reisch, 2013).

Other more pointed critiques, however, have involved blatant charges of mediocrity in our educational standards and professional culture, organizational hegemony coupled with self-serving elitism in our leadership, a monopolistic organizational stranglehold on accreditation standards, a total lack of accountability, ideological confusion, an overbearing ideology that thwarts academic rigor and independent scholarship, and even a call for only established scholars to serve on the COA (e.g., Markward & Drolen, 1999; Mohan, 2009; Stoesz & Karger, 2009).

Clearly, there are varied opinions about problems with accreditation standards and the ongoing dilemmas plaguing our profession as well as an equal number of proposed solutions, many of which are at odds with each other. Despite specific points of disagreement among social work educators, most would agree that it is certainly troubling when organizations become entrenched in justifying the status quo rather than responding to valid concerns raised by their stakeholders. There is, of course, the flip side to consider as well. Faculty, administrators, and field instructors easily can become entrenched in tradition and be resistant to any changes that take them out of their comfort zone. This, coupled with ideological adherence to theories and methods of practice that may be outdated or proven to lack any semblance of empirical support, ensures that any attempts at change will be met with resistance.

Despite the increasing and largely successful attempts to make the process of EPAS revision more transparent and inclusive, there remain serious questions about the process involved in deciding curriculum policy and accreditation standards. To their credit, the COA made the currently proposed accreditation revisions easily accessible, provided multiple opportunities for feedback and input both online and in a series of meetings, and made further revisions that resulted from the feedback they received. Nonetheless, the process used to determine accreditation standards is, at its core, a social and political process based on negotiation, consensus, and authority (Gambrill, 2001; Green & Baskind, 2000). In many fundamental ways the process is not dissimilar to the one used for the revisions of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM), as discussed in my recent editorial (Robbins, 2014). According to Green, the consensual nature of this process leads to a watered-down document that reflects the status quo and prevents forward thinking (Green & Baskind, 2000). And despite the more recent move to CBE, there is no indication that this has changed in any substantial way.

Having been involved in four self-studies in the last 36 years, the first involving initial accreditation of a BSW program and the latter three for accreditation reaffirmation in my current graduate program, I have been acutely aware of the changes that have occurred over the years. When the 2008 EPAS was implemented, I was particularly pleased to see that critical thinking was explicitly listed as a required competency. Needless to say, I was equally dismayed to see that the proposed 2015 EPAS revision no longer includes this as a competency necessary for sound and ethical practice. In fact, the APA Task Force (2006) explicitly listed critical thinking as an essential skill for CBE. I hope that most would agree that critical thinking is indispensable if social workers are to accurately and thoughtfully analyze policies and policy implications and examine and critique research related to client well-being, client problems, and the varied external conditions that affect and shape our clients’ lives. Critical thinking is also necessary to be able to distinguish between interventions that are helpful, those that are worthless, and those that may actually harm clients. Despite this, it is almost nonexistent in the proposed EPAS revision. In the second draft (the currently available document), the term critical thinking is only briefly mentioned four times. It is important to note that there is no guidance as to what is meant by critical thinking or how it should be operationalized. The proposed EPAS revision also mentions critical analysis, which is not necessarily the same as critical thinking. And, similarly, no guidance is provided as what is meant by critical analysis or to how one goes about engaging in such an endeavor.

In an examination of how critical thinking has been used in the social work literature, Mathias (in press) found two distinct ideas that reflect significant epistemological differences in how critical thinking is conceptualized. He pointed out that this has received scant attention in the literature, despite the very real implications this has for practice. I am not suggesting that either of these ideas is superior to the other or that only one should prevail. Rather, if we truly value critical thinking, as I believe we should, removing it from the required competencies and relegating it to mere mentions in EPAS will only serve to perpetuate the existing conceptual ambiguity and fail to provide the necessary direction on how to attain and become competent in this necessary skill.

Another substantive change that I believe is cause for concern is the elimination of Human Behavior and the Social Environment (HBSE) as a distinct competency. Responding to feedback of the first EPAS draft, the COEP reported that content on human behavior will be infused across competencies, based on the rationale that this knowledge is central to all competencies. But a closer examination reveals that the importance and centrality of HBSE is seriously minimized, and, rather than being truly infused, it now only relates to practice with various systems. However, HBSE theories are relevant not only to practice but to policy and research as well, which is not reflected anywhere in the proposed revision. Furthermore, social workers are now only required to understand theories of human behavior and the social environment and apply knowledge in practice. This, coupled with the total absence of critical thinking about theory, and absent any requirement to evaluate a theory’s concepts, utility, or empirical support, is extremely problematic for a variety of reasons. Historically, most theories of human behavior used in social work education have been borrowed from other fields and have little, if any, empirical support, In addition, many are woefully outdated, as well as being time and culture bound. Further, some fail to reflect social work values and are antithetical to the complex person/environment focus that is one of the distinguishing features of our profession. The lack of critical thinking about theory has led to very dangerous and unethical practices, as was the case, for example, with recovered memory therapy and rebirthing therapy, both of which have now been widely discredited.

As we move forward, it is crucial that curriculum policy and accreditation standards be based on more than negotiation, consensus, and authority. Interpretation of accreditation standards continues to support a relative status quo, despite the major changes that have occurred in our agencies, our student body, and our universities (Wayne, Raskin, & Bogo, 2006). In addition, as Bisno and Cox so aptly noted (1997), the ever-increasing roles and responsibilities expected of full-time faculty make it unlikely that changing accreditation standards will lead to an in-depth, systematic curriculum review and revisions, even though this is sorely needed with the move to competency-based education. Finally, over the years there have been a number of calls for research on accreditation (Gambrill, 2001; Stoesz & Karger, 2009; Yaffe, 2013), but previous endeavors to address this have not been met with any measure of success (Midgley, 2009). As we move to refine and implement the new EPAS, perhaps the right time to begin this is now.

Susan P. Robbins

University of Houston

Editor-in-Chief